one eye joe

Remington has been awarded the military contract to build the new M-4 Carbine. They outbid Colt. I am saddened, being a Colt fan. We'll have to wait for feedback from the troops, to make a judgement.....http://kitup.military.com/2012/04/re...l?ESRC=army.nl

dfariswheel

Apparently what they got is a contract to build SOME M4 Carbines. This is apparently to see if they can meet the standards.

This is all rather strange since Remington doesn't actually manufacture any AR parts, they buy them from other suppliers.

Plus, for every M4 Carbine sold to the government by anyone, Colt gets a percentage.

one eye joe

The whole deal sounds very strange to me also, dfariswheel. Their AR type "R-15 450 Bushmaster" has me confused. Is it built in partnership with Bushmaster ? ? I'm glad Colt will get a piece of the pie. They stand to lose much revenue as a result of this move.

cohee

I can't believe that FN didn't get a piece of this action. I hope Remington gets it's act together and delivers a good product.

Did Colt get outbid on this or what?

one eye joe

Cohee, Remington DID outbid Colt. Given Colt's experience in building quality milspec ARs, and being already set up to do so, I find it difficult to believe that Remington could manufacture weapons of EQUAL quality for less money. Perhaps the Remington entrant barely meets the requirements, but is cheaper, whereas Colt exceeds the minimum specs but costs more. Being a cost-driven process, Remington won the bid. The troops deserve THE VERY BEST, and I sincerely hope that is what they get. Back in our day--Early problems with the M16 in the 'Nam were traced in part to the bean counters using a different powder in the ammo than what was designed for the weapon, because it was cheaper. Lives were lost due to resulting weapon malfunctions......

cohee

In 66 we were carrying first variant M-16s. A lot of troops carried an assembled cleaning rod to get the case out of the chamber when (not IF) it jammed.

I experienced owning a single shot musket a couple of times when the pucker factor was high and raised higher by having an inoperative weapon while being shot at.

These were the weapons issued to members of the 1st Cav while they were training at Ft.Benning. After nine months in country, the finish was worn off both metal and plastic stocks. Keeping them rust free took half an hour daily.

We also had a unit SOP of removing the chambered cartridge from the rifle and replacing it a couple of times daily. Some troops liked to squirt oil on the cartridges in a mag just before loading the mag. This was problematic when you really needed to change mags.

I hope the new Remington M-4s do the job. Although I can't help but wonder if the USMC is better off by keeping and improving the M-16.

one eye joe

Cohee, in 1968 I was fortunate enough to carry the M16A1 with the foward assist and the birdcage rather than the 3 prong flash suppressor. I had an issue cleaning kit, patches and LSA. I had a shaving brush, and a little comic book featuring a female character that stressed weapon maintenance. As much as possible, I tried to keep my my rifle and personal 1911 in a state of cleanliness and readiness. Luckily, I never had a weapon malfunction. In the earlier years, like during your time, malfunctions were the norm sadly. Some troops still carried the 3 prong model in 1968.

Alabaster

Very interesting. This whole thread is, I think. Thank you guys for your service.

I think that this could be a good thing. If Rem is making guns as good or better than what Colt's then I can't see and issue. If there is ANY sacrifice in quality, price is irrelevant. I wouldn't care if they only cost the govt $1 if it costs one of ours losing his life in combat. I do fear it in a sense, I guess. From the recent experiences I've had in the last 2 years with Rem, it causes concern. If their ammo and 1911 is any indication of what's in store with these rifles, then it's nothing short of frightening, I just hope and pray that the decision makers here had more in mind than their calculators.

one eye joe

Alabaster, I share your fears. Remington's ammo is my VERY LAST CHOICE if nothing else is on the shelf and I need it now. I have never owned a Remy but their bolt actions have enjoyed a good reputation through the years. Their M-24 Sniper Weapon System is allegedly the cat's ass (according to Remy, anyway). That's NOT a semi auto, however. Many manufacturers make one particular style of weapon really well, but a different style in their lineup sucks. I like SA revos and MK II Rugers, but I wouldn't buy a DA revo or another semi auto pistol from Ruger, just for example (none of the Rugers REALLY suck--there's just better choices out there) Since cost appears to be the driving force in awarding govt contracts, I suppose we should be glad that Taurus didn't field an entrant.....

cohee

Remington M-4 = $673 per unit to Uncle Sam.