Red Dot choices

[Core781]

Good bit of history. I see two wrongs in this story, and of the two it seems Colt is the lesser. I understand the US owns the TD but Colt invented the M4 and its every bit part of their manufacturing process. Colt selling the DOD M4 for the same cost they sell citizens is bitter sweet if you ask me. The DOD per weapon probably included a warranty and additional accessories that we see with these contracts? So how is pricing an M4 at $1000ish price gouging? By many perceptions cost equals quality, which of course is not always true but nevertheless results in constant debate over ARs, optics, etc. I once read the M4 contract was around $400ish per carbine? Now that Colt has benefitted from Cranes development of enhanced components for the M4A1 such as the SOCOM barrel, I see Colt manufactures these barrels as well as Remington an probably FN. So by having three different manufacturers we win. But you cant steal Colts proprietary intellectual capital they invested into the M4. Without Colt we would be shooting AKs or heavy roller lock type battle rifles. So I would avoid the price gouge statement unless it was more than Colt charged retail which is really not the case given the additional requirements a DOD contract imposes on this equipment.

[Mysteryman]

Is this a Sassy boy? I disagree with the Aimpoint is master race argument you make. I agree they make some of the best red dots, but there are other optics that are as good or better.

Which make or model does it better than Aimpoint??

[Core781]

Which make or model does it better than Aimpoint??

Answer my question and ill answer yours.

[Mysteryman]

Answer my question and ill answer yours.

What question? Do I own an Aimpoint? Yes, 3 currently, have had several in the past.

[TonyAngel]

I have one of the first generation Aimpoint comps. Mine is anodized blue. I’ve had it since the 90s. I even have the battery compartment extension so that you can make the dot brighter to be able to see the dot in bright sunlight. It still works. Back when I bought it, I had no idea it would last this long. Of course, the tech has come a long way. My blue aimpoint’s battery life is measured in days.

I also have a Bushnell TRS25 that I bought when they were first released. It’s still working as well, although it’s beat to crap. It has a much better battery life than the comp.

What qualities make a dot sight a good one? They all do pretty much the same thing. Many here are touting the performance of the aimpoints. What does the Aimpoint do that the others don’t? In fact, I’d say that Aimpoint is behind the curve in terms of innovation. Even trijicon is offering more than a simple dot.

I’ve read a couple of references to Sig optics being garbage. I’m wondering why. Is it because they are unreliable or is it because of their country of manufacture? I opted to get a Romeo4T.

The 4T and it’s mount are made of 7075 instead of 6061 like most. It has 4 useful reticle options. Solar power. 50k+ hours of battery life. What’s not to like? What does an Aimpoint do that the Romeo won’t? There are a couple of things that the romeo4T will do that the Aimpoint can’t. So, what makes it garbage and not even worthy of consideration?

My point is that there are many options. What do you want in a red dot? If you want something that will last, Aimpoint has a very good track record and that track record is what you’re paying for. It has that track record because use them. Sometimes you just have to give something a chance to prove itself. Remember when the Glock 17 first came out?

I admittedly prefer to avoid buying anything made in China and it isn’t because of the quality of the products.

As for the Romeo4T, I don’t know where it or its parts are made. Mine is labeled “Designed in Oregon, Assembled in the USA.”

Do we know for a fact that none of the parts in an Aimpoint or EOTech or Trijicon are made in China? Not a single piece of surface mount electronics? Not a single o-ring, screw or sealant or the aluminum itself?

Besides, I thought we were discussing red dot options. Not political views.

Personally, I like running my 4T better than my Aimpoint or 1.5x acogs. As for what kind of beating it will take, that remains to be seen.

[26 Inf]

Good bit of history. I see two wrongs in this story, and of the two it seems Colt is the lesser. I understand the US owns the TD but Colt invented the M4 and its every bit part of their manufacturing process.

Actually, I believe Colt owns the TDP. Snippet from the article I didn't include:

In June/67, in its role as the DOD’s designated procurement agency, the US Army purchased a license from Colt for the TDP and the rights to produce the M16 family of weapons and its component parts.

Some wonder why Colt proprietary rights to the M16 TDP and M4 TDP are still given such reverence by the Army, long after most applicable patents had expired. For example, the Army paid royalties on second-sourced M16 rifles and parts until 1990. It is more glaring in the case of the M4 as very little of the M4’s original design was ever patented by Colt. The short answer is that the Army agreed to such terms in the original 1967 licensing agreement and its amendments, particularly the infamous “M4 Addendum” of 1997.

Colt selling the DOD M4 for the same cost they sell citizens is bitter sweet if you ask me. The DOD per weapon probably included a warranty and additional accessories that we see with these contracts? So how is pricing an M4 at $1000ish price gouging?

Well, because of this:

At the time, (of the M4 Addendum) it probably seemed like a good deal to give Colt sole-source rights to the M4, in return for the DOD maintaining its rights to second-source the M16 and its spares.

All seemed well, until the US Army dramatically expanded its issue of the shorter M4 Carbine over the M16 during its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, ultimately leading to decision to issue a “pure fleet” of M4.

At the same time, Colt’s (sole source) prices for the M4 began to steadily increase:

In December 1999, Colt was charging $521 per M4 carbine (DAAE20-98-C-0082-P00011)

By December 2002, Colt’s price for an US Army-configuration M4 carbine was $912 (DAAE20-02-C-0115-P00004).

However, the Army was able to gain certain concessions over the years. In July 2006, Colt agreed to lower its prices, and begin to provide basic issue items like the Back Up Iron Sight (BUIS) and M4 Adaptor Rail System (ARS), which had formerly been provided to Colt as Government Furnished Material (GFM) (W52H09-04-D-0086-P00025).

Before this concession, the price of the M4 and M4A1 had grown to $1,012 and $1,029, respectively (W52H09-04-D-0086-0040).

Afterwards, the price of a basic M4 dropped to $815, and with Colt-provided BUIS and ARS only $1,142 (W52H09-04-D-0086-0040).

At the time of the final sole-source delivery order in December 2010, Colt’s price was just over $1,221 per fully-equipped carbine (W52H09-07-D-0425-BR02 external link).

So, when the Armed Forces began to transition to a fleet comprised mainly of M4's, simply by economy of scale the price should have dropped. Yet between 1999 an 2002 the contract price of an M4 INCREASED $391.00, or 42.8%, per carbine. During this time, according to CPI, inflation was 7.4%.

So, we are buying more, but paying much more, this makes no sense, and as a taxpayer it ought to offend you.

Now, pay attention to the last sole-source contract price of $1,221.00.

In April of 2012, Remington finally broke the chain of Colt contracts with the U.S. Army, placing an $84 million bid for a run of 120,000 M4A1s, with 24,000 carbines to be delivered starting September of this year.

The cost per Remington M4A1 was just $673 per. Their bid severely undercut Colt’s previous contract, which priced the rifles at over $1,200 a piece.

If you want to do the math, that is 44% lower than colts previous price. Unfortunately, this bid did not stand:

After Remington won the first bid, Colt immediately filed a complaint with the GAO stating that the company did not properly calculate the royalties as part of their bid, and the GAO found in Colt’s favor, at least partially.

Following the decision, the GAO told the Army that they had 65 days to solicit new bids from vendors or face Congress if they went ahead and signed the Remington contract. Not willing to face the legislature over a budgetary decision, the Army complied.

Although the list of bidders was confidential, it was obviously going to be between Colt, Remington and F.N. Herstal.

As we all know, FN won that contract. Their price was $642.00 per M4A1, roughly 46% lower than Colt's last sole-source contract price.

Now, this may not be price gouging to you, but it is to me. As a taxpayer I find it particularly offensive. But you do you.

So I would avoid the price gouge statement unless it was more than Colt charged retail which is really not the case given the additional requirements a DOD contract imposes on this equipment.

That statement is laughable. If you are buying a hundred rifles for a police agency, would you expect to pay MSRP?

[Core781]

I did read your original post: thanks for taking the time to repost and highlight. I was told years ago the United States controlled all the TDPs per agreement to ensure national security interests were met. In fairly certain this is still the case. And the original patents and rights belong to their respective holders, so I worded it poorly. And I was also not sure Colt owned the M4? I knew they invented it so I assumed they held it.

From 1999 we have seen a significant increase in material costs and labor costs. During Obamas two terms alone inflation as cost of living sees it went up 26%. This is why a dozen eggs and gallon of milk now cost $5 or more. Im guessing Colts production facility is relatively unchanged and producing the same product with more costly materials and labor os going to result in significant cost increase over that time period. Other international based corps or congloms can be more agile and mass produce similar products but they are not the same. Im impressed with FN and Remingtons barrels but I would still prefer a Colt.

So for this reason I do not see it as price gouging as much as trying to keep the company afloat. That said I support American companies competing and redundancies in the interests of national security.

I appreciate that some of us are keeping track of the history and evolution of arms, I believe we cannot allow international banks who dictate conglom board decisions to gain too much of a foothold on US arms manufacturing or we will be screwed. Things are getting increasingly political and exceptionalism’est in banking and it scares the hell out of me. This is probably to a good degree why Colt Defense decided to stop civilian sales of the M4.

[TonyAngel]

Just an update on that Romeo4T that I had to send in due to the thread insert backing out. When I sent it in, I was told to send the optic only. No battery or accessories. Just the bare optic. I just got what they sent me and what I got back was a fresh in the box Romeo4T with all of the accessories. Less than two weeks since I shipped it to them. I don't think that's bad service at all.

I also compared the 4T to the 4M that I just got. The 4T is almost a different animal. It is longer and more robust than the 4M.

I actually came out ahead on this deal. The 4T mount is rock solid with a mounting system that is very much like that of the Geissele mount. Now I have a good mount to put my 4M on. If you get a 4T, unless you need QD capability, the mount that comes with the optic is just fine.

[Core781]

What question? Do I own an Aimpoint? Yes, 3 currently, have had several in the past.

I asked if the guy in your pic was SAS?

[Core781]

Most DOD contracts include a service warranty and often support equipment. Magazines, cleaning kits, slings, and other accessories. We know Colt can make an M4A1 for around $450 give or take. How do you suppose they make a profit and keep their lights on if they sell the DOD M4s at cost? Kind of silly don’t you think?