Colt’s Manufacturing awarded $57M contract for M4 carbine rifles

[Uzi2]

"Military use" is a completely meaningless statistic to me wrt choosing a rifle. Likely some special ops units have used whatever they want, though. The fact remains thst various trainers test/abuse/beat these other brands just as hard as a Colt.

-Mike

Agree, and if it ever comes a time when I have to vacate my AO, I'm taking a bunch of AKs with me anyway​

 

[fencer]

I've never found any Colt gun, rifle or pistol to be any more accurate or robust than another brand of similar type. I refuse to pay for the pony logo.

Colt AR's are about $1000 and even their top of the line 1911 is only about $1500. I don't see the premium of which you speak.
I know that there are higher quality/ price options available, but in their price range, I think Colt offers one of the best bangs for the buck.

 

[M60]

"Military use" is a completely meaningless statistic to me wrt choosing a rifle. Likely some special ops units have used whatever they want, though. The fact remains thst various trainers test/abuse/beat these other brands just as hard as a Colt.

-Mike

Not so sure I believe that testers abuse these rifles in the same ways that combat situations do, or for the prolonged lengths of time. What we both know for sure is that military use/ combat use, can be trusted as very good testing under pretty bad conditions. This is meaningful to me. As for likely use by special ops, pretty useless without documented results. I'm sure these other brands are good rifles too though. I just sleep better knowing mine is Colt.

 

[M60]

Agree, and if it ever comes a time when I have to vacate my AO, I'm taking a bunch of AKs with me anyway​

Good for spray and pray I guess, but I haven't seen or heard of many AK's winning accuracy matches. When it counts, it's a good thing to hit what you aim at.

 

[M60]

The Scottish broadsword has a longer track record of reliability. Doesn't mean I want one to defend myself. I don't think that Colt can even hold a candle to BCM, Noveske, LMT or KAC.

C'mon. Broadsword. Really!

 

[Uzi2]

Good for spray and pray I guess, but I haven't seen or heard of many AK's winning accuracy matches. When it counts, it's a good thing to hit what you aim at.

There's hundreds of thousands of graves around the world occupied by people hit by AK rounds and they weren't all up close and personal.
I've built my own AKs and even an SBR M92 will ring a six inch steel all day long at over 100yds with iron sights and Wolf or Golden Tiger ammo.

Don't underestimate the accuracy of a properly built AK, or especially the ruggedness and reliability of them under severely adverse conditions.

As for hitting when it counts, look up how many rounds are expended per enemy kill/hit. It might surprise you to see that its nowhere near a 1:1 ratio....not even close.

 

[Uzi2]

Colt AR's are about $1000 and even their top of the line 1911 is only about $1500. I don't see the premium of which you speak.
I know that there are higher quality/ price options available, but in their price range, I think Colt offers one of the best bangs for the buck.

Are Colt rifles mil spec?.....or are they Colt spec?

And if Colt spec, what are the differences......specifically.

Every AR I've built is mil spec @ 1/3 the retail price.....none are Colts and I'd put them up against a Colt(you supply) in a torture test any day of the week.

 

[Uzi2]

Not so sure I believe that testers abuse these rifles in the same ways that combat situations do, or for the prolonged lengths of time. What we both know for sure is that military use/ combat use, can be trusted as very good testing under pretty bad conditions. This is meaningful to me. As for likely use by special ops, pretty useless without documented results. I'm sure these other brands are good rifles too though. I just sleep better knowing mine is Colt.

I'm glad you sleep well.

I do too, every night and there's no Colts here.

 

[M60]

There's hundreds of thousands of graves around the world occupied by people hit by AK rounds and they weren't all up close and personal.
I've built my own AKs and even an SBR M92 will ring a six inch steel all day long at over 100yds with iron sights and Wolf or Golden Tiger ammo.

Don't underestimate the accuracy of a properly built AK, or especially the ruggedness and reliability of them under severely adverse conditions.

As for hitting when it counts, look up how many rounds are expended per enemy kill/hit. It might surprise you to see that its nowhere near a 1:1 ratio....not even close.

lol. I have a bit of experience at rounds expended per enemy Kill/hit as you call it. I think that you and I just use different standards of accuracy acceptance. You're happy with 6MOA at 100 yards. I as well as many others would be unhappy with 6MOA, and you refer to this as a properly built AK. My Remington lightweight twenty ga., with a rifled barrel achieves 6 MOA. too and there's tons of venison in the freezer every year to prove it. AK's are well built though.

 

[M60]

I'm glad you sleep well.

I do too, every night and there's no Colts here.

Well, that's why they make different flavors of ice cream, but vanilla, the first flavor ever, is still Americas favorite.

 

[M60]

Are Colt rifles mil spec?.....or are they Colt spec?

And if Colt spec, what are the differences......specifically.

Every AR I've built is mil spec @ 1/3 the retail price.....none are Colts and I'd put them up against a Colt(you supply) in a torture test any day of the week.

So you build you AR's for about $ 330.00? If they are as good as you say, you should be selling AR'S under the Uzi2 name.

 

[Uzi2]

So you build you AR's for about $ 330.00? If they are as good as you say, you should be selling AR'S under the Uzi2 name.

Yes, thats $330 retail.....not bulk purchase wholesale pricing.

That market is already flooded by several other manufacturers churning out the same rifle for a fraction of the cost and out selling Colt exponentially......without government contracts keeping them afloat, hence the very strong competition with Colt.

Colt is a name, marketed to the fullest extent possible, and a company that has been awarded govt contracts.....as the lowest bidder.
All the research I've done so far concerning ARs turns up opinions of Colt being a superior AR...without one specific ever being brought forth in any of them to back their opinion.....its marketing.

 

[fencer]

Are Colt rifles mil spec?.....or are they Colt spec?

And if Colt spec, what are the differences......specifically.

Every AR I've built is mil spec @ 1/3 the retail price.....none are Colts and I'd put them up against a Colt(you supply) in a torture test any day of the week.

You are building mil spec AR's for around $300? I call BS.

And arguing that a standard AK is as accurate as an off the shelf, GI issued Colt is ridiculous. On the Island, every rifle that the armorer issued was capable of qualifying at 500 yards, with irons. I am no AK expert, but I have shot a few and there is a reason it is widely accepted that the AR is much more accurate platform. Yeah, you can work on most rifles and improve accuracy, and everyone knows how reliable AK's can be, but modern AR's are pretty robust and I will gladly trade having to run a bore snake through the barrel every now and again for the ability to put every round into a torso sized target at 500 yds, right out of the box.
All of the research I have done puts Colt about middle of the pack, with Noveske and LMT as top tier. My best/ favorite AR is not a Colt, but a custom build, and the Ultra match barrel alone was more than $300, but it is almost boring in it's accuracy out to 300yds. I have never shot it at longer distances because 300 is the longest range my club has to offer.

 

[Uzi2]

You are building mil spec AR's for around $300? I call BS.

And arguing that a standard AK is as accurate as an off the shelf, GI issued Colt is ridiculous. On the Island, every rifle that the armorer issued was capable of qualifying at 500 yards, with irons. I am no AK expert, but I have shot a few and there is a reason it is widely accepted that the AR is much more accurate platform. Yeah, you can work on most rifles and improve accuracy, and everyone knows how reliable AK's can be, but modern AR's are pretty robust and I will gladly trade having to run a bore snake through the barrel every now and again for the ability to put every round into a torso sized target at 500 yds, right out of the box.
All of the research I have done puts Colt about middle of the pack, with Noveske and LMT as top tier. My best/ favorite AR is not a Colt, but a custom build, and the Ultra match barrel alone was more than $300, but it is almost boring in it's accuracy out to 300yds. I have never shot it at longer distances because 300 is the longest range my club has to offer.

Hold on there....I never made any statement saying that a standard AK was as accurate as a standard off the shelf GI issue Colt.....read the post again.

Other than that, what is your point again? You wobbled back and forth intermixing four different subjects.

The inherent accuracy of a 5.56 over a 7.62x39 is not even in question, especially at longer ranges. Even the Russians have switched to the 5.45x39( their basic equivalent of our 5.56).

The subject is Colt vs everything else out there, and many of the "everything else" has equalled or has surpassed Colt long ago.....even you agree there are several better choices that could be made.

As for long range, most people couldn't even see or identify a man size target at 500yds without a scope and especially if said target was making any effort at concealment. In the northeast, its unusual to have that type of open terrain most places. In places where visibility is measured in miles, they use larger rifles with good scopes.(not that they are shooting miles but I think you get the point)

Bottom line is, buy or build, shoot and be proficient with what you feel comfortable with. I'm both comfortable and confident with all my builds.

 

[M60]

Hold on there....I never made any statement saying that a standard AK was as accurate as a standard off the shelf GI issue Colt.....read the post again.

Other than that, what is your point again? You wobbled back and forth intermixing four different subjects.

The inherent accuracy of a 5.56 over a 7.62x39 is not even in question, especially at longer ranges. Even the Russians have switched to the 5.45x39( their basic equivalent of our 5.56).

The subject is Colt vs everything else out there, and many of the "everything else" has equalled or has surpassed Colt long ago.....even you agree there are several better choices that could be made.

As for long range, most people couldn't even see or identify a man size target at 500yds without a scope and especially if said target was making any effort at concealment. In the northeast, its unusual to have that type of open terrain most places. In places where visibility is measured in miles, they use larger rifles with good scopes.(not that they are shooting miles but I think you get the point)

Bottom line is, buy or build, shoot and be proficient with what you feel comfortable with. I'm both comfortable and confident with all my builds.

Now I have to call bull. Everyone in my platoon at P.I., could not only see the target at 600yards, but they could all in fact, hit x rings at 600 yards as well.

 

[M60]

Yes, thats $330 retail.....not bulk purchase wholesale pricing.

That market is already flooded by several other manufacturers churning out the same rifle for a fraction of the cost and out selling Colt exponentially......without government contracts keeping them afloat, hence the very strong competition with Colt.

Colt is a name, marketed to the fullest extent possible, and a company that has been awarded govt contracts.....as the lowest bidder.
All the research I've done so far concerning ARs turns up opinions of Colt being a superior AR...without one specific ever being brought forth in any of them to back their opinion.....its marketing.

I believe that proven combat reliability is a fact that Colt can boast. I guess you'd either have to carry one, or be there carrying something else, to see Colts in action and being abused over long periods of time, to understand it, or have a level of confidence in it that a home build just can't provide. Either way, the AK, 6MOA you're happy with would worry me at any distance, other than point blank.

 

[Uzi2]

I believe that proven combat reliability is a fact that Colt can boast. I guess you'd either have to carry one, or be there carrying something else, to see Colts in action and being abused over long periods of time, to understand it, or have a level of confidence in it that a home build just can't provide. Either way, the AK, 6MOA you're happy with would worry me at any distance, other than point blank.

The "best brand AR" subject is discussed exhaustively at the big AR board. Lets stick to the subject. My saying I'd be taking an AK has nothing to do with it.

 

[M60]

The "best brand AR" subject is discussed exhaustively at the big AR board. Lets stick to the subject. My saying I'd be taking an AK has nothing to do with it.

Discussion is not proof. Ya gotta show me. I'd take your AK too, before I'd take a rifle based only on discussions on a computer.The Chinese AK 47 can take a beating. They're just not very accurate. I don't believe that I ever saw a Russian AK in combat. I can only speak for AK's from the now, Norinco factory.

 

[Uzi2]

Discussion is not proof. Ya gotta show me. I'd take your AK too, before I'd take a rifle based only on discussions on a computer.The Chinese AK 47 can take a beating. They're just not very accurate. I don't believe that I ever saw a Russian AK in combat. I can only speak for AK's from the now, Norinco factory.

I take it that our discussion isn't proof either? Again, lets stick to the subject......take AK completely out of the picture and lets refocus the discussion back to the original subject, Colt vs "all the others".

 

[M60]

I take it that our discussion isn't proof either? Again, lets stick to the subject......take AK completely out of the picture and lets refocus the discussion back to the original subject, Colt vs "all the others".

That's right. Our discussion isn't proof of anything. My personal experience is proof to me. Colt has proven itself to me, under actual combat conditions. The others have not, and their ability to compete with Colt is there for, opinion. I don't question their accuracy. I question only their reliability to withstand combat abuse, without prolonged combat proof. Does that not make sense to you?

 

[Uzi2]

That's right. Our discussion isn't proof of anything. My personal experience is proof to me. Colt has proven itself to me, under actual combat conditions. The others have not, and their ability to compete with Colt is there for, opinion. I don't question their accuracy. I question only their reliability to withstand combat abuse, without prolonged combat proof. Does that not make sense to you?

It makes perfect sense, thats why I stated way back that to each their own. If you are comfortable with Colt, have at them.

I also stated that mil spec is a basic minimum that most of the other newr companies have already met or surpassed....and for lack of a military contract their guns are not used by the military presently.
When I was in the military, there were several different manufacturers names on the M16s, Colt, US Ordnance, Harrington & Richardson and GM Hydromatic that I can remember. The reason I remember is because as we were sitting around in the barracks in basic, with our newly issued rifles getting familiarized with them everyone was comparing theirs to someone elses to see who had what.

All of those other company manufactured rifles were also combat proven by hundreds of thousands of military personnel for north of 13 years in Viet Nam.
My rifle in basic was a Harrington & Richardson and it worked great....qualified expert with it and expert every year after in different units for six years and none of them were Colts.

One thing they all had in common.......all built to the same spec......mil spec.

 

[robmcd]

The DoD release says up to 10,000 “additional” rifles, so the price per unit may actually based upon a larger number. Additionally, such contracts often include spares, armorer tools, training and other support. FMS marks the total up by 2%, which is less than ITAR and State Department Application fees would be if a US Manufacturer were to bid direct. Chances are the countries involved are required to purchase a US product due to offset agreements. I’ve been involved with many contracts with TACOM, FMS, RSAF, etc. You have to read the small print. My last contract was for 100 KVA 400 hz trailer mounted generators for the RSAF. We had to provide onsite support through an in-country partner, send an engineer and technicians to 19 sites for start-up, etc. A few years ago we quoted 3000 AR10 type rifles to KSA for perimeter control on their southern border. FMS ate my lunch.

 

[M60]

It makes perfect sense, thats why I stated way back that to each their own. If you are comfortable with Colt, have at them.

I also stated that mil spec is a basic minimum that most of the other newr companies have already met or surpassed....and for lack of a military contract their guns are not used by the military presently.
When I was in the military, there were several different manufacturers names on the M16s, Colt, US Ordnance, Harrington & Richardson and GM Hydromatic that I can remember. The reason I remember is because as we were sitting around in the barracks in basic, with our newly issued rifles getting familiarized with them everyone was comparing theirs to someone elses to see who had what.

All of those other company manufactured rifles were also combat proven by hundreds of thousands of military personnel for north of 13 years in Viet Nam.
My rifle in basic was a Harrington & Richardson and it worked great....qualified expert with it and expert every year after in different units for six years and none of them were Colts.

One thing they all had in common.......all built to the same spec......mil spec.

 

[M60]

lol. I'm pretty sure that very few, if any of us here, need to be schooled on what mil spec is. You did tell me one thing that I didn't know however. I never knew that Harrington & Richardson made M16's. Did you know that Ted Rowe, former president of Sig, in N.H., is one of the sons, of the former owner of H&R? Pretty sure the M16's you speak of, had to have been in military use after my military days, since we trained with M14's at P.I. and all of the M16's that I saw in Nam were made by Colt. I'm fairly certain that the other brands that you spoke of never saw "13 years" of use in Nam. Maybe toward the back end of that time frame though. For the record, it's not about the spec.. It's about, will they actually take the hammering, prolonged rain and mud, and lack of proper maintainence for prolonged periods of time, above and beyond expectation, because that my friend is what the troops are betting their lives on. Maybe all of the brands that you speak of can deliver. Then again, maybe not. Only military use will provide the answer.

 

[fencer]

Hold on there....I never made any statement saying that a standard AK was as accurate as a standard off the shelf GI issue Colt.....read the post again.....
As for long range, most people couldn't even see or identify a man size target at 500yds without a scope and especially if said target was making any effort at concealment.

Bottom line is, buy or build, shoot and be proficient with what you feel comfortable with. I'm both comfortable and confident with all my builds.

My apologies. When you said...
"Don't underestimate the accuracy of a properly built AK, or especially the ruggedness and reliability of them under severely adverse conditions." I assumed that you were comparing the accuracy of the two platforms. I see now that I made a leap, but it did read that way.
As mentioned, Marines all had to qualify at 500 with irons. I don't know if they still do, but I assume so. Even in the Northeast, a 500 yard line of sight is easy if you just add some elevation. I can see almost a 1/2 mile from my roof.

The "best brand AR" subject is discussed exhaustively at the big AR board. Lets stick to the subject. My saying I'd be taking an AK has nothing to do with it.

Back to the issue at hand, for the price, the Colt is a solid choice. If I have to choose a $1000, of the shelf rifle, S&W, Spikes, Stag etc. I am talking the Colt all day and twice on Sundays

 

[M60]

My apologies. When you said...
"Don't underestimate the accuracy of a properly built AK, or especially the ruggedness and reliability of them under severely adverse conditions." I assumed that you were comparing the accuracy of the two platforms. I see now that I made a leap, but it did read that way.
As mentioned, Marines all had to qualify at 500 with irons. I don't know if they still do, but I assume so. Even in the Northeast, a 500 yard line of sight is easy if you just add some elevation. I can see almost a 1/2 mile from my roof.



Back to the issue at hand, for the price, the Colt is a solid choice. If I have to choose a $1000, of the shelf rifle, S&W, Spikes, Stag etc. I am talking the Colt all day and twice on Sundays

When I went through recruit training at P.I., Marines had to qualify at 600 yards with irons. We were shooting .308, M14's though. Our instructors said recruits, if you can see it, you can hit it. Damned if he wasn't right. Heck the night shooting, jungle combat course, at Pendleton,was shot at 200 yards.