Colt to stop making rifles
- Thread starter Bozz10mm
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
.png)
You don't understand the government contract system. FN underbid Colt, but there are many that bid. It's not about who has the best, it's about who can make them cheaper and still be within specifications and has the capacity to build the order.
No my question is what rifle is better than the Colt for 1k or under. Are you awake?
I would argue the HK 416 for DoD contracted AR-15 style purchases.
However, ‘best’ is subjective, quality can be measured. Which is where the MIL-STDs come into play.
From a DoD perspective, so long as the assembled firearm complies with the MIL-STD, its of acceptable quality.
Now, when you delve into effectiveness, that’s where SOCOM and the guys in Crane, IN get into the picture via specialty contract vehicles and production for mission specific requirements.
But the average M4 per unit price is $650-ish. Think about that for a minute; if you’re paying more than that for a 6920, you’ve overpaid.
Plenty of rifles can be built or bought that are as good or better than Colt's for the same or less money. Here was my response to the facebook post by a gun grabbing liberal. Unbeknownst to me a person I know is a former gun range owner.
Attachments
The FN M4A1 at contract price.
Better in what way?
Barrel quality, trigger quality, price, Bolt carrier group quality, grip quality, stock quality, hand guard quality. Basically the entire firearm.
Well we can agree to disagree on this and it's all good.
Absolutely we're both allowed to be wrong once in a while ;-)
Price is irrelevant as there is profit that has to be made.
If a manufacturer loses money on the .gov contract, they have to make it back somehow. That comes in the form of pricing available to the public.
As far as quality goes, one can assemble an AR composed of entirely MIL-STD parts and have the same measurable quality as a 6920 for less than $1K.
There’s also no shame in brand; that’s part of the overall reputation of a product and a value proposition, which Colt is a master of.
Now, the reason .gov prices are why they are is because .gov views the product as a commodity built to MIL-STD quality requirements, not as an investment.
Most individuals view the product as an investment, which is something else Colt recognizes and factors into their pricing.
If I were in the market today, which I am not, I would be considering these 2 and possibly a few others.
Sionics Weapon Systems Patrol Rifle Three-E
http://sionicsweaponsystems.com/store2015/home/132-patrol-ssk-12.html
Sons of Liberty Gun Works Loyal 9 Series Law Enforcement Carbine
https://sonsoflibertygw.com/loyal-9...arbine-sl-handguard-liberty-fighting-trigger/
Sionics Weapon Systems Patrol Rifle Three-E
http://sionicsweaponsystems.com/store2015/home/132-patrol-ssk-12.html
Sons of Liberty Gun Works Loyal 9 Series Law Enforcement Carbine
https://sonsoflibertygw.com/loyal-9...arbine-sl-handguard-liberty-fighting-trigger/
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
What does Colt offer over BCM, PSA, RRA, Stag, Springfield, S&W, Ruger, Spikes, and about a few dozen other AR makers? They are all the same basic gun, regardless of what anyone says. Other than a few minor improvements and possibly a higher quality barrel, one AR is not going to be superior over another. I would happily put my mutt of a rifle against any Colt any day of the week. I have no doubt that they would perform at similar levels.
Also, basing a rifle's superiority on a military contract is completely ignoring the fact that a military contract is more dependent on cost more than anything else. There are hundreds if not thousands of better combat arms that were never adopted throughout history because a cheaper alternative was "good enough". Go watch Forgotten Weapons and you'll see plenty of examples of that. If you choose to ignore that fact and base your argument on a military contract, then your argument is worthless in my opinion.
Also, basing a rifle's superiority on a military contract is completely ignoring the fact that a military contract is more dependent on cost more than anything else. There are hundreds if not thousands of better combat arms that were never adopted throughout history because a cheaper alternative was "good enough". Go watch Forgotten Weapons and you'll see plenty of examples of that. If you choose to ignore that fact and base your argument on a military contract, then your argument is worthless in my opinion.
And yet none of those rifles have the track record under harsh environments that the Colt and now FN have. They have proved themselves in combat and that is of value TO ME.
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
What exactly does Colt do differently than these other companies that would allow them to function better under adverse conditions?
The better question is what does Colt do at a sub par level that has allowed them to prove their combat worth after all these years? Colts are combat proven, the others not. This is why I choose Colt and its a free country and you can buy what you want.
