PDA

View Full Version : Colt&FN get M16 Contracts


HappyGunner
December 27, 2007, 04:26 PM
FN Manufacturing, Columbia, S.C., was awarded on Dec. 21, 2007, a $33,670,649.00 firm-fixed-price, contract for M16A3 and M16A4 Rifles to support the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. Work will be performed in Columbia, S.C., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Web bids were solicited on Sep. 10, 2007, and nine bids were received. TACOM LCMC, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W52H09-08-D-0121).

Colt Defense, Hartford, Conn., was awarded on Dec. 21, 2007, a $ 15,925,000.00 firm-fixed-price contract for M16A3 and M16A4 Rifles to support the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. Work will be performed in Hartford, Conn., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 13, 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Web bids were solicited on Sep. 10, 2007, and nine bids were received. TACOM LCMC, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W52H09-08-D-0122).

Sturmgewehre
December 27, 2007, 05:27 PM
That's good I suppose.

My issued rifle was a M16A2 made by Colt. Great rifle... I wish I could have kept her. :)

bennnn
December 27, 2007, 06:28 PM
Thought this was old news... FN has had the top spot since the late 80's.

HorseSoldier
December 27, 2007, 08:19 PM
HK couldn't afford enough Congressmen to get a dust test on this one, too? :rolleyes:

Greg Bell
December 27, 2007, 10:53 PM
Clearly not. Colt and FN have managed to keep getting contracts for a rifle that consistently gets beaten by HK weapons in actual testing. Yay for lowest bidder and corruption! Sorry troops!

PPGMD
December 27, 2007, 10:59 PM
So the military could spend $400 for a weapon system that works 99.9916% of the time (553 stoppages of the M-16A4), or they can spend $1,500 on a weapon system that operates 99.9965% of the time. With that $1,100 they can buy ACOGs to top them with.

Jeffenwulf
December 27, 2007, 10:59 PM
Just have FN send a SCAR-H my way instead and I won't protest.

Greg Bell
December 27, 2007, 11:11 PM
PPGMD,

If you don't mind my asking, what costs $400 and what costs $1500? Not the XM8 I presume?

And represent the numbers how you like, we know the XM-8 performed SEVEN times better than the m4 in the dust testing. I can't recall how the M16 did. Poorly I can safely assume.

22-rimfire
December 27, 2007, 11:13 PM
Great. Maybe that will keep Colt around for another 3 years.

Greg Bell
December 27, 2007, 11:16 PM
Hey, is Colt's president still in favor of the creation of a federal gun permit and gun owner licensing and testing?

10-96
December 27, 2007, 11:19 PM
Whatever happened to the 6.8SPC and 6.5 Grendel tests?

Jeff22
December 27, 2007, 11:19 PM
If you were issued an M-16A2, it was NOT made by Colt.

FN has produced ALL the A2s.

10-96
December 27, 2007, 11:31 PM
Not so Jeff. I was issued a A2 that was made by Hydro-Matic Transmission Corp., Div of General Motors. It had a 1:9 bbl, and that was fine for Reservists until we got mobilized for OIF- then we got FN's with 1:7's. Yes, I still have access to the records- I was the unit armorer.

PPGMD
December 27, 2007, 11:34 PM
If you don't mind my asking, what costs $400 and what costs $1500? Not the XM8 I presume?

$1,500 is the cost of the 416 with BUIS with the excise tax subtracted out (the stoppage rate was from the XM8 which is likely more expensive but I can't find a cost figure). I am sure that it can get around $1,000 with a large contract since that price for a single gun on a LE demo letter. The $400 is the cost I was quoted that the M16A4 costs the Corps.

The M16A4 has 553 stoppages IIRC, it was from the summer test to determine the amount of lube to use in a desert environment.

Yes seven times better, how about we show what those numbers really mean. Since the M-4 is not related to this contract I will leave those numbers out:
XM8: 99.9965%
MK16 SCAR Light: 99.9962%
416: 99.9961%
M16A4: 99.9916%

Yes the XM8 is 5 times better then the M16A4, above 99% you are splitting hairs.

It seems like people expect that every time that the military orders more rifles that it has to do a competitive test on every single new rifle available on the market. So then the military will have a dozen different weapons in the supply line, or spend billions every year replacing it's entire stockpile.

p99guy
December 27, 2007, 11:39 PM
XM8 and G36 both suffer in one area....too much full auto will damage(melt) the polymer receiver parts and stop the weapon, long before a M4 overheats and warps the gas tube(which is fixable)....You dont want a melty rifle to repel human wave attacks do ya lol:eek: (oh and they get cracks as well)

So while they eat dust, the receiver melting was a tough one for the testers to gloss over. So while the M4 never has been or will be anything near perfect, it works well enough. The G36 on the otherhand will never see widespread use other than Germany, and a license built version for Mexico.
Its as innovative as a plastic Armalite AR18. (and yes I have used G36KE1's)

Greg Bell
December 28, 2007, 12:10 AM
P99,

PPGMD and I are veterans of a long stalemate on this issue (and Horse too). Be prepared for soul-crushing boredom if you join in.

But, while you are at it, do you want to point me to a source for your information on the XM-8 melting? Just wondering, because NO ONE has been able to do so yet. It is, as far as I can tell, total internet B.S.. Everybody talks about "tests" or "my buddy in special detachment wango tango sez so," but nobody has coughed up anything other than anectodatal (i.e. "trust me") evidence or just links to somebody else on the web that says so. I suspect you have been misinformed, but hey, I would be saying the same thing except one day a few years back I started asking folks for their evidence, and they never were able to come up with anything.

In short, please show me why you said this about the XM-8:So while they eat dust, the receiver melting was a tough one for the testers to gloss over. What is your source for this? If you don't have one, fair enough, but I think you are repeating b.s..

By the way, "too much full auto fire" will damage and/or melt any gun, so I presume you are talking about something unique to the XM-8.


The G36 on the otherhand will never see widespread use other than Germany, and a license built version for Mexico.

Although I hesitate to address this because the G-36 is not at issue here, the G-36 is acutally one of the most successful rifles of modern times. Name another new rifle since the 1970s that has been adopted by more militaries? You will notice that it has wide adoption among special forces groups. Odd for gun with so many easily detected flaws.



- Italian Gruppo di Intervento Speciale special operations group of the Carabinieri, Aeronautica Militare for the RIAM Special Forces group. -
French GIGN and RAID.
- Bundeswehr and Bundespolizei (German Federal Police).
- Georgian Army special operating forces, presidential guard.
- Indonesian Army Kopassus and Indonesian Marine Corps Denjaka (G36C and G36K).
- Latvian Army and Speciālo uzdevumu vienība (Latvian special forces).
- Lithuanian Army adopted the G36V and G36KV in 2007. [1]
- Irish Army Rangers.
- Jordan Special Forces.
- Malaysian Army Grup Gerak Khas and Royal Malaysian Police Pasukan Gerakan Khas counter-terrorist units (G36C).
- Nepalese Army.
- Norwegian Navy Kystjegerkommandoen.
- Philippine Navy Special Warfare Group and Philippine Army Light Reaction Battalion.
- Polish police and special forces GROM (G36K), Government Protection Bureau (G36K, G36KV and G36C).
- Portuguese Marine Corps, Portuguese Republican National Guard, Portuguese Air Force Pol�*cia Aérea (military police) and NFOT (former-RESCOM).
- Singaporean STAR unit.
- Spanish Armed Forces (G36E).
- Särskilda Skyddsgruppen (Special Protection Group, SSG) and Nationella insatsstyrkan (National Task Force, NI).
- Royal Thai Navy SEALs, Royal Thai Marines RECON Battalion.
- UKSF, CO19.
- Cypriot National Guard.
- Finnish Border Guard rapid response units.
-

PPGMD,

Here is how the hair splitting worked out in the last test...

XM8: 127 Class I, II and III stoppages.
Mk16 (5.56 SCAR): 226 Class I, II and III stoppages.
HK 416: 233 Class I, II, and III stoppages.
M4: 882 Class I, II and III stoppages.

Either way, the M4, and M16 just don't perform as well. That is why Delta force and Seal team 6 get them, they like to be able to split hairs.

Wildalaska
December 28, 2007, 12:25 AM
Great. Maybe that will keep Colt around for another 3 years.

LOL....well they made 100 plus before the M16 was even invented..

You do know that Colt defense (M16s) and Colt manufacturing (SAAs and 1911s) are seperate companies...??

Wildmore1911spleasefolksAlaska TM

Greg Bell
December 28, 2007, 12:29 AM
I wish Colt (not colt defense) would come out with a series 70 1911 with a beavertail, Novaks and no front serrations. I have an XSE and the duckbill and front serrations are annoying. I am probably going to send it to get an Answer backstrap from Novak's like my sweet ass commander...

http://web.mac.com/timetravelfoundation/The_LAMP/THE_LAMP/Entries/2007/11/18_.45_OLD_vs._NEW_files/shapeimage_2.jpg


BTW Wild, Cormack McCarthy RULES! Pynchon stinks!

Jermtheory
December 28, 2007, 01:34 AM
represent the numbers how you like, we know the XM-8 performed SEVEN times better than the m4 in the dust testing.

one rifles number of failures relative to another is meaningless without the context no(the number of rounds fired)?

that line of reasoning seems to latch onto the number of failures and dismiss the total of rounds fired.

doesnt the percentage give the context far better?

that fraction of a percent may very well be enough justification for a change in a case like this.i wouldnt be the one to tell a soldier in harms way otherwise.

is it the best in sand?apparently not.

but in those conditions its still pretty damn impressive for such an "unreliable weapon" imo.

Wildalaska
December 28, 2007, 02:38 AM
BTW Wild, Cormack McCarthy RULES! Pynchon stinks!

Pynchon is god, dude :)

WildseeyasoonAlaska TM

nemoaz
December 28, 2007, 08:30 AM
An 8 lb 5.56mm.... no thanks.

Greg Bell
December 28, 2007, 09:35 AM
one rifles number of failures relative to another is meaningless without the context no(the number of rounds fired)?

that line of reasoning seems to latch onto the number of failures and dismiss the total of rounds fired.

doesnt the percentage give the context far better?

that fraction of a percent may very well be enough justification for a change in a case like this.i wouldnt be the one to tell a soldier in harms way otherwise.

is it the best in sand?apparently not.

but in those conditions its still pretty damn impressive for such an "unreliable weapon" imo.

Not really. The test was basically altered after the first round because the M4 malfunctioned about once every six rounds using Colt's suggested oiling method. After they came up with a new lubrication scheme just for the test, then they were able to get it up to one jam in 88 rounds. Who hoo!.:rolleyes:

Obviously, there is nothing I can say. The facts are facts. Most of the bad stuff about the XM-8 and 416 is rumor and or/fabrications by people who have decided the M4 is "the best" or "good enuff." Endless claims are made with nothing to back it up. All we know is, when objective testing is done, EVERYBODY else beat the M16 and M4. As for the XM-8, the military tried to adopt it without all the red tape and rigamaroll. Christopher Dodd and Joe Lieberman, along with the rest of the Colt's politicians got the rifle canned because Colt didn't get a chance to compete (apparently, 40 years of putting out a substandard rifle was enough for the Army).

p99guy
December 28, 2007, 10:09 AM
Ahh Greg your not able to crush my soul even with the full backing of HK lol
The G36 and its off spring is the ultimate British Aerospace/ Sterling AR18, though BA no longer owns HK, the legacy of it lives on. If 100 organizations each own 200 rifles, does that make it universal? When the same question is posed about the P90 PDW on the internet, its deemed a resounding no.
The HK does have one thing going for it, and thats its overall price which makes it more cost effective in initial unit procurement than the M4 from Colt when purchased by anyone that isnt buying 300,000 units at a time(then Colt gives a really nice price break) Hell we can get a G36 cheaper than a MP5 these days at departmental cost. On the all guns melt front, the M16 and variants will warp a gas tube before it destroys the barrel or receiver- while that does put it out of action, its not permately harmed. Sources? being in on tests at Blackwater( you DONT want a XCR rifle either, they pulled out of the tests due to breakage, the SAR21 made it though ok though)
Im glad you love your HK's( I like my P7) but dont try to sell us that they are without problems/23rd century tech made from materials salvaged from Roswell lol.

I do miss ol' Phil Singleton being head of HK training Div, we knocked back a pint or two back in the day.(and it was intertaining to see the USAF combat arms folks as he er ah "damaged" thier rifle range with a HK69) and base housing called the Security Police because bullets was hitting their roofs after going vertical at the berm.(HK21)

So do you get a paycheck from HK ,or are you just an avid fan?

PPGMD
December 28, 2007, 10:14 AM
Not really. The test was basically altered after the first round because the M4 malfunctioned about once every six rounds using Colt's suggested oiling method. After they came up with a new lubrication scheme just for the test, then they were able to get it up to one jam in 88 rounds. Who hoo!.

The US Army finally acknowledged what veterans on combat has said for years, the M4/M16 work better when well lubed. The training manual was written by supply line people where it's easier to store weapons with less lube. Colt hasn't been involved in writing the training manuals in years. Hk also recommends applying "generous" amounts of lube on the 416 IIRC.

Here is how the hair splitting worked out in the last test...

The M16 wasn't included in that test because it wasn't one of the weapon systems being considered. The M-16 has the rifle length gas system which lowers the amount of junk that enters the weapon, as such it has fewer stoppages then the M-4 with it's carbine length gas system. As I said in the past thread "seven times better" is useless without stoppages. Particularly considered the XM8 has 11 stoppages that required an armorer to fix (about 10% of all it's stoppages), so yeah it has less stoppages but the ones it had were much much worse then the average stoppage on an M4 or M16 (only 2%).

HappyGunner
December 28, 2007, 10:41 AM
LOOKOUT Colt, FN, H&K CERBERUS is coming:)

Greg Bell
December 28, 2007, 11:34 AM
PPGMD,

As I said in the past thread "seven times better" is useless without stoppages. Particularly considered the XM8 has 11 stoppages that required an armorer to fix (about 10% of all it's stoppages), so yeah it has less stoppages but the ones it had were much much worse then the average stoppage on an M4 or M16 (only 2%).


Hahahaha. That is proof that you must be having fun in your defense of the M4. The M4 had almost TWICE as many malfunctions that needed an armorer vs the XM8. The only reason you were able to cook the percentage so high on the XM8 was because it had SO FEW MALFUNCTIONS.

In summary, the uncooked numbers are these...

H&K XM8, came out the winner, with a total of 116 minor stoppages and 11 that would have required the armorer to fix the problem.

The M4 experienced a total of 863 minor stoppages and 19 that would have required the armorer to fix the problem.



I thought you were just arguing for the fun of it. I have caught you now!:D

PPGMD
December 28, 2007, 11:48 AM
And your seven times number is any less cooked, because you neglects to mention that the stoppage rates are for 60,000 rounds fired in the worst possible conditions. The percentages work out to very minor differences between the weapon systems in the long run. Only the M4 has less then a 99% run rate, and only just barely.

But I think it's pretty had that the XM8 has so many major stoppages when the other two competitors to the M4 had zero stoppages that required an armorer to fix. To me that number is more telling, I would rather have a weapon that had 800 stoppages and zero requiring an armorer, then one with 130 and 11 requiring an armorer.

As I mentioned in the original thread I would like to see an AK tested, and try different magazines and other changes to the M-4. For example the heavy profile barrel (what the 416 and other piston guns use), and the LMT SOPMOD II bolt.

Picture of the M-4s as they came out of the dust chamber:
http://www.army.mil/-images/2007/12/18/11427/army.mil-2007-12-18-145229.jpg

Greg Bell
December 28, 2007, 11:49 AM
P99,


Ahh Greg your not able to crush my soul even with the full backing of HK lol

Fair warning. You will be bored!!!!! Muhahahahhaha!:D

The G36 and its off spring is the ultimate British Aerospace/ Sterling AR18, though BA no longer owns HK, the legacy of it lives on.

Nope, the G36 (HK50) was already going when BAE bought them in 91. Good pseudo-history though.

If 100 organizations each own 200 rifles, does that make it universal? When the same question is posed about the P90 PDW on the internet, its deemed a resounding no.


When various other spec-ops groups adopt your rifle, and entire national militaries, you are doing alright. Again, what new assault rifle has done better in the last 30 years? I agree that the AR-15 and Ak-47 have done better, but they had a big head start. But the only other guns in serious distribution were guns like the FNC, Steyr Aug, Famas and SA-80. None of which have had anything like the success of the G36. Further, the G36 came along right at the end of the cold war, which was a DEAD time for weapons procurement.

Sources? being in on tests at Blackwater( you DONT want a XCR rifle either, they pulled out of the tests due to breakage, the SAR21 made it though ok though)

Any actual sources that show the testing results? No offense.


Im glad you love your HK's( I like my P7) but dont try to sell us that they are without problems/23rd century tech made from materials salvaged from Roswell lol.

The straw man you just beat is ready to discuss the terms of his surrender.

So do you get a paycheck from HK ,or are you just an avid fan?

They outta send me a damn check!!

STLRN
December 28, 2007, 11:53 AM
If you were issued an M-16A2, it was NOT made by Colt.

FN has produced ALL the A2s.

That not correct, all most all of the Marine Corps A2s were made by Colt, we did get a few FNs prior to starting the conversion to A4 MWSs.

Greg Bell
December 28, 2007, 11:54 AM
And your seven times number is any less cooked, because you neglects to mention that the stoppage rates are for 60,000 rounds fired in the worst possible conditions. The percentages work out to very minor differences between the weapon systems in the long run. Only the M4 has less then a 99% run rate, and only just barely.

No, my number is not misleading at all. The simple fact is that the XM8 performed about seven times better than the M4. You played switcheroo by trying to make it look like the M4 had fewer serious malfunctions by citing it as a percentage of overall jams (which the M4 had a ton). The M4 has a crapload more jams, and nearly twice as many malfunctions so bad an armorer was needed.


But I think it's pretty had that the XM8 has so many major stoppages when the other two competitors to the M4 had zero stoppages that required an armorer to fix.

Agreed! Of course, the other guns malfunctioned a lot more than the XM-8. But I agree with you, I would take a gun that has a twice as many minor jams than one will take me out of service. Of course, using that, the LAST gun you want is the M4, which is the king of both.



As I mentioned in the original thread I would like to see an AK tested, and try different magazines and other changes to the M-4. For example the heavy profile barrel (what the 416 and other piston guns use), and the LMT SOPMOD II bolt.

Me too. Plus, I sure would like to see more info about this test.

STLRN
December 28, 2007, 11:56 AM
The $400 is the cost I was quoted that the M16A4 costs the Corps.

I am not sure if that is the current cost or not. I will have to look at a CMR when the News Years 96 is over. But I think MWS cost several times that amount without the optics.

PPGMD
December 28, 2007, 12:00 PM
No, my number is not misleading at all. The simple fact is that the XM8 performed about seven times better than the M4.

Without context is it is misleading. If the test had came down to the XM8 having two stoppages and the M4 having 14 you could say the same thing. Percentages does a much better job of showing how minor the numbers are.

PPGMD
December 28, 2007, 12:02 PM
I am not sure if that is the current cost or not. I will have to look at a CMR when the News Years 96 is over. But I think MWS cost several times that amount without the optics.

IIRC the number is from 2001, and just covers the rifle itself.

Greg Bell
December 28, 2007, 12:09 PM
Percentages does a much better job of showing how minor the numbers are.

I agree, if your goal is to minimize the M4's shortcomings.

What we know is, that the M4 jammed an average of once every 68 rounds if you divide the total number of rounds by the total number of jams. The XM8, using the same method, jammed every 472 rounds. We don't know when the guns started jamming, but we know those are the averages.

68 rounds vs. 472 rounds. In other words, a little over two mags for the M4, and nearly 16 mags for the XM8.


Pretty damning.

PPGMD
December 28, 2007, 12:25 PM
68 rounds vs. 472 rounds. In other words, a little over two mags for the M4, and nearly 16 mags for the XM8.


Pretty damning.

Not really considering that the average fire fight is 120 rounds. So it may jam once every fire fight. That's a pretty minor number. Also the report says that most of the jams came late into the cleaning cycle, just before the major cleaning at 1,200 rounds.

dixierifleman
December 28, 2007, 12:44 PM
my brand new M16A4 is made by FN. ive seen FN and Colt M16A4s and A2s.

Greg Bell
December 28, 2007, 01:01 PM
Not really considering that the average fire fight is 120 rounds. So it may jam once every fire fight. That's a pretty minor number.
:eek:


I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Slamfire
December 28, 2007, 02:04 PM
WildAlaska said:
You do know that Colt defense (M16s) and Colt manufacturing (SAAs and 1911s) are seperate companies...??

That may be the reason Colt receives contracts as a small business. If you don't know, if a business gets themselves classified as a small business, (they hit bingo if they are classified as "small, disadvantaged, female owned, minority business” ) that business gets preferential treatment in the awarding of Government contracts. Call it Equal Opportunity. Colt has been gaming the system.

Sturmgewehre
December 28, 2007, 02:24 PM
That not correct, all most all of the Marine Corps A2s were made by Colt, we did get a few FNs prior to starting the conversion to A4 MWSs.

Yup, thanks for responding for me. I forgot about this thread. :D

Sturmgewehre
December 28, 2007, 02:28 PM
XM8 and G36 both suffer in one area....too much full auto will damage(melt) the polymer receiver parts and stop the weapon, long before a M4 overheats and warps the gas tube(which is fixable)....You dont want a melty rifle to repel human wave attacks do ya lol (oh and they get cracks as well)

So while they eat dust, the receiver melting was a tough one for the testers to gloss over. So while the M4 never has been or will be anything near perfect, it works well enough. The G36 on the otherhand will never see widespread use other than Germany, and a license built version for Mexico.
Its as innovative as a plastic Armalite AR18. (and yes I have used G36KE1's)

We ran this G36K until it melted around the locking nut for the barrel and we couldn't get it off.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m167/tharmsen/Video/th_G36k.jpg (http://s104.photobucket.com/albums/m167/tharmsen/Video/?action=view&current=G36k.flv)

It didn't take too much abuse to cause this either. We weren't hammering the weapon with magazine after magazine, and we weren't doing 30 round magazine dumps. But after extended firing it did melt. On the other hand I've had my M16 so hot that the gas tube was glowing red and it still ran 100% and I can easily take it all the way down.

p99guy
December 28, 2007, 11:18 PM
Since Greg only knows what he reads, he should read "Heckler & Koch, Armorers of the Free world" by Gene Gangarosa Jr., which is written with the cooperation and assistance of HK. The G11 bankrupted HK, as the 0ctober 3rd 1990 reunification of Germany bashed any chances of recouping the millions
HK spent out of its own coffers on the project. Royal Ordnance promptly purchased them, and later sold them to To British Aerospace.
If you will turn to page 97 and 98 it clearly outlines the G36 is a refinement of the AR18 (which both Royal Ordnance and British Aerospace have manufacturing experience in, and the Royal Ordnance SA80 is based on.
This also allowed HK the contract to fix all of the SA80's in the British arsenal for needed operating capital.
"The G36 was designed with low cost in mind, and appeared at the right time,
and therefore prospered where the G11 failed"
The G36 is refered to as "evolution, rather than revolution"

The XM8 is just a G36 action in slightly updated clothes, and still has great amount of operating parts commonality. So they are very connected, and you can't talk of one and exclude the other.


So tell Us besides what you read on the internet and magazine articles, How many thousands of rounds you have put though these weapons....or what you may have pointed one at( I have pointed a G36, at a living person with full intent to kill if he didnt comply)

Lets see some pics of you with them..Here I am

Full auto, one handed with my issue G36KE1..they are controlable
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9829/f90584502pk.jpg

and with the Rifles, Im the one in plainclothes with the P99 and badge on my belt.

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/1368/king121le.jpg

If you want to throw a really good party, you use this whatchamacallit thats on my living room rug. :) James Sullivan did a good job on it.
http://img285.imageshack.us/img285/1926/mvc009f6ur.jpg

Greg Bell
December 28, 2007, 11:47 PM
Yep, good stuff. Still, the G36 (HK50 project) started in 1990. BAE bought them in 1991. The G36 clearly uses a derivitive of the AR18 action (which is well known). But, that has nothing to do with HK's purchase by BAE. Unless the guys at HK have perfected time travel tech. I fail to see how posing with a G36 or engaging in every classic logical fallacy changes that.

p99guy
December 29, 2007, 12:22 AM
Come on Greg do tell us your experiance, you wouldnt want your fans to think its based on HK pistol use, a few hours of gun instruction and magazine articles. Royal ordnance purchased before BAE did. No time travel on that one at all. Bankruptcy is a bitch

and your doing classic avoidence, of your personal experiance that supposedly lofts you oh so on high....we want to know your worthy.(in the real world)

lets see, still in your 20's?
Law classes, finds it incredible that marijuana isnt as easy to get as a boob job. likes to shoot pistols, and read....dabbles in reloading, much to the demise of one of your toys..never been a soldier, cop, or mall ninja.
can lash others with a keyboard..does that about cover it? Fill us in.

Wildalaska
December 29, 2007, 05:17 AM
That may be the reason Colt receives contracts as a small business.

Doubt it.

ets see, still in your 20's?
Law classes, finds it incredible that marijuana isnt as easy to get as a boob job. likes to shoot pistols, and read....dabbles in reloading, much to the demise of one of your toys..never been a soldier, cop, or mall ninja.
can lash others with a keyboard..does that about cover it? Fill us in.

Lighten up Francis, its just a gun debate.......:D

WildwhoawhoawewhoaAlaska TM

blume357
December 29, 2007, 06:01 AM
could pee the furtherest.

On the face of it the % given are not decernable... Once you hit 99% something either way doesn't mean a whole lot and other factors become much more important... cost.. compatability... etc.

Bottom line is it's a government contract... of course everything about it is flawed.

I'm happy... 33million going through my state is a good thing.

Greg Bell
December 29, 2007, 07:37 AM
Come on Greg do tell us your experiance, you wouldnt want your fans to think its based on HK pistol use, a few hours of gun instruction and magazine articles. Royal ordnance purchased before BAE did. No time travel on that one at all. Bankruptcy is a bitch

and your doing classic avoidence, of your personal experiance that supposedly lofts you oh so on high....we want to know your worthy.(in the real world)

lets see, still in your 20's?
Law classes, finds it incredible that marijuana isnt as easy to get as a boob job. likes to shoot pistols, and read....dabbles in reloading, much to the demise of one of your toys..never been a soldier, cop, or mall ninja.
can lash others with a keyboard..does that about cover it? Fill us in.

Ha. Nice try. I am also a nerd!

Seriously, there is no need to make it personal. I simply pointed out where you got your facts wrong. That doesn't mean I think you are a liar. It is easy for us to accept information that supports our position without confirming it (something I have NEVER DONE :D ) . You don't have to be a lawyer to think that facts are important. Your post is exactly why I like non-anecdotal evidence. People take these things so personally they are willing to abandon all pretense to reasoned argument and go straight into fallacious personal attack mode.

Blume,

Oh man, I could totally pee the furthest. :D

p99guy
December 29, 2007, 10:26 AM
You have to realize Im an officer of the court, and Im privy to standard tactics used by lawyers to change the subject, redirect, minimize, selectively omit,and make jabs...all the while offering nothing in return. I see what your doing. Textbook.

Now go ahead and admit what we know, and by ommission proven---you are in no position to be an expert, and you parrot heresay(as you folks so aptly like to point out)

you, have been making personal jabs all along..that too is textbook

its called:
1.if the facts are on your side use the facts.
2.if the law is on your side use the law
3. when neither is on your side, go after their credibility.

you have allready gone after mine...time to state yours :) or squirt more ink like an octipuss to cloud the issue.