Colt wins the MARSOC (CQBP) contract

This is a discussion on Colt wins the MARSOC (CQBP) contract within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by marcclarke This is why we have emptied the armories of the old ("nostalgic"?) M14 rifles and sent them all to the sandbox. ...

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 101
Like Tree91Likes

Thread: Colt wins the MARSOC (CQBP) contract

  1. #76
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by marcclarke View Post
    This is why we have emptied the armories of the old ("nostalgic"?) M14 rifles and sent them all to the sandbox. They work. They work better than the newer 5.56 NATO rifles, particularly at longer ranges.
    Have you employed these "better" M14s in combat? I have. I asked for and received them for my spotters, to support my snipers using M24s/M107s in Afghanistan. I was, to put it mildly, underwhelmed with them.

    The major issue with them was the magazines, which were not new factory mags, so I will not fault the rifle for that.

    The second issue was the procurement of suitable mounts for optics, which was a PITA, but again not (exactly) the rifle's fault.

    But, even after securing good mags and good optics, the rifles were just not that reliable OR accurate. They were, again, underwhelming. The only reason I asked for them is because they were the only option available - I would have taken solid DMR rifles in 5.56, or the SR25, or anything similar over them (and begged for ANYTHING to replace them once I saw first hand how mediocre they were), but, that's what was there, so we made do. Plus, of course, they are heavier, lower capacity, heavier ammo, harder to maintain..... Yeah, much better.

    To say that they (the M14) works "better" than the M16 family of rifles is laughably divorced from reality. Do they physically push a bullet farther? Yep, sure do. Is that the end all and be all in a combat rifle? Not only no, but heck no.
    64zebra likes this.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    10,940
    Circle of Life! What goes around, comes around! History repeating itself! It's all been explained before.
    Hiram25
    You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
    Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
    dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku

  4. #78
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    Kind of off base. This isn't about the Corps dropping the 9mm, its about replacing 1911s with 1911s. The M9 isn't going anywhere for the rest of the Corps. MARSOC has been using .45s for a while, the big issue regarding nostalgia is that they are still opting for the 1911 when there are other viable options in .45, some of which have all ready been tested and are in service with other units, such as the SEALs using the Hk45c.

    Sent via Tapatalk, and still using real words.
    exactly! There are alot better choices for a lighter weight higher capacity. 45...never mind my personal feelings on the 1911, the idea that people in charge thought a 3 pound, low capacity, 100 year old design was the best choice, blows me way.

  5. #79
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    A 3 pound, low capacity, 100 year old design that shot itself apart (literally) in 4 of the 5 test guns.... And yet the hoi polloi of the "If it ain't a 1911 it ain't squat" segment of society is jumping for joy. I bet Colt is, too - they just won a $22.5 million dollar contract for "combat" guns that (again, literally) catastrophically fail after 12,000 rounds 80% of the time. That's no mean feat in this day and age.
    atctimmy likes this.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  6. #80
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,059
    All of those horrific negatives but, yet the grip is so incredible and the trigger is so sweet and it is such a natural pointer that they STILL want the damn thing!
    That is an amazing thing in this day and age.

    Actually based on the article some guns were pulled because they showed visible cracks but, that is not a catastrophic failure.
    By definition a catastrophic failure is when the gun catastrophically fails during firing and becomes instantly inoperable. AKA unable to function.
    A catastrophic failure is not "Hey we don't want to shoot this one anymore because it might possibly be dangerous."
    Historically 1911s have continued to function with cracked slides and cracked frame rails (especially with the frame rail split directly above the slide stop cut in the frame) The remedy for that was just to mill that area completely out and put the gun back into service.

    Only one failed to operate due to the recoil spring binding and it looks like that was due to the recoil spring plug being damaged.
    I have never seen that particular failure before.

    The others were still functioning but showing cracks.

    Hummmm....I'm trying to think of a good example of an actual catastrophic failure. Oh...OK - when all of those Glocks Ka-Boomed and ruptured the barrel chamber, blew the slides apart at the ejection port and blew the magazines out of the pistol butt breaking the magazine catch instantly turning the firearm into a useless fight ending paperweight.
    That would be a great example of a catastrophic failure.

    That's how I spell touché.

    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    A 3 pound, low capacity, 100 year old design that shot itself apart (literally) in 4 of the 5 test guns.... And yet the hoi polloi of the "If it ain't a 1911 it ain't squat" segment of society is jumping for joy. I bet Colt is, too - they just won a $22.5 million dollar contract for "combat" guns that (again, literally) catastrophically fail after 12,000 rounds 80% of the time. That's no mean feat in this day and age.
    goldmaster likes this.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  7. #81
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,353
    So how much do they need to fail in order for them to be considered failures? I know that if one of my guns was showing cracks and it was no longer able to be used (because I was afriad to use it) I would consider that gun to have failed me.

    How much fail is failing?
    QKShooter likes this.
    Mark Twain:
    The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a
    patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

  8. #82
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,059
    I have absolutely no idea but, I sure did like the way you asked the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    So how much do they need to fail in order for them to be considered failures? I know that if one of my guns was showing cracks and it was no longer able to be used (because I was afriad to use it) I would consider that gun to have failed me.

    How much fail is failing?
    atctimmy likes this.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  9. #83
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,594
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    So how much do they need to fail in order for them to be considered failures? I know that if one of my guns was showing cracks and it was no longer able to be used (because I was afriad to use it) I would consider that gun to have failed me.

    How much fail is failing?
    On this series of tests, 5000 rnds.

    1.Semi-automatic,.45 ACP caliber.

    2.Single stack magazine must hold at least 7 rounds. It is desirable that the pistol function with the Marine Corps.45 ACP 7-round magazine (NSN 1005-01-373-2774) used in the current MEUSOC pistol.(Wilson-Rogers)

    3. Pistol must have an accessory rail meeting MIL-STD-1913 specifications to mount accessories.

    4.It must have a grip safety and an ambidextrous manual safety which are operable by users wearing cold weather and NBC gloves.

    5.It has dull, non reflective surfaces and uses standard military colors.

    6.It must lock the slide or bolt to the rear after the last round in the magazine is fired.

    7.It has a beveled magazine well to facilitate rapid loading.

    8.The pistol has a lanyard loop attachment point.

    9.It can hold a five shot group to an average of no more than 4 inches by 4 inches at 25 yards

    10.It should be no more than 9 inches in length and weigh less than 4.5 pounds with empty magazine.

    11.It has a consistent trigger pull of 5.1 pounds.

    12.The pistol can demonstrate reliability of an average minimum of 300 rounds between stoppages and 5,000 rounds between parts failures.

    13.Magazines should remain serviceable for at least 3,000 rounds.

    14.The pistol will perform reliably after being subjected to standard MIL SPEC environmental tests, drop tests, and temperature extremes.

    15.The pistol must demonstrate "drop in" parts interchangeability, with no milling, filing, or fitting required.

    16.There shall be no degradation in performance after parts are exchanged.

    17.The pistol is resistant to corrosion and chemicals, and is compatible with current military approved small arms cleaning, lubrication, and preservative and storage agents.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Diligentia Vis Celeritas"

    "There is very little new, and the forgotten is constantly being rediscovered."
    ~ Tiger McKee

  10. #84
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,353
    15.The pistol must demonstrate "drop in" parts interchangeability, with no milling, filing, or fitting required.
    I like 1911s but I'm not sure I'm buying this one.
    Mark Twain:
    The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a
    patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

  11. #85
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,594
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    I like 1911s but I'm not sure I'm buying this one.
    They did it before, I'm sure they can do it again.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Diligentia Vis Celeritas"

    "There is very little new, and the forgotten is constantly being rediscovered."
    ~ Tiger McKee

  12. #86
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    5,000 rounds between "parts failures?" I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that they meant MINOR parts - springs and the like. A broken frame isn't - in my book - a parts failure. It is a dead gun.

    I will concede the "catastrophic failure" point in the name of specific terminology. I maintain, however, that a gun being so broken that it must be pulled from the test and cannot be made to safely run again without MAJOR refitting is a VERY SERIOUS failure that could (should?) raise some VERY SERIOUS questions about the test subject. Also, I'll point out that I never said that "they should have gone with Glock" or anything of the sort. They should have gone with a gun that didn't crack what should be its very strongest piece after a relatively low round count.

    I will also point out that "pointability" is completely subjective, and that "sweet trigger" is only slightly less subjective. If we're going to use purely subjective conditions for the choice (as opposed to, you know, not falling apart after x number of rounds), then I say we go with the .88 Magnum, because it was in Johnny Dangerously and is therefore "sweetly pointable."
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  13. #87
    Member Array XDshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    128
    So does this mean the cost of 45acp is gonna go up or down? It's pricey to feed these things!
    "If it bleeds...we can kill it." -Dutch, Predator

  14. #88
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,224
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Have you employed these "better" M14s in combat? I have. I asked for and received them for my spotters, to support my snipers using M24s/M107s in Afghanistan. I was, to put it mildly, underwhelmed with them.

    The major issue with them was the magazines, which were not new factory mags, so I will not fault the rifle for that.

    The second issue was the procurement of suitable mounts for optics, which was a PITA, but again not (exactly) the rifle's fault.

    But, even after securing good mags and good optics, the rifles were just not that reliable OR accurate. They were, again, underwhelming. The only reason I asked for them is because they were the only option available - I would have taken solid DMR rifles in 5.56, or the SR25, or anything similar over them (and begged for ANYTHING to replace them once I saw first hand how mediocre they were), but, that's what was there, so we made do. Plus, of course, they are heavier, lower capacity, heavier ammo, harder to maintain..... Yeah, much better.

    To say that they (the M14) works "better" than the M16 family of rifles is laughably divorced from reality. Do they physically push a bullet farther? Yep, sure do. Is that the end all and be all in a combat rifle? Not only no, but heck no.
    I think together we could shed some light on this but it would require a whole new thread. The difference between real world and what some think is a long road.
    The m14 is a fine weapon but it is not a replacement for the job the M4 does.
    Designated marksman were give m14's all over the place. For some it was the first time they used a weapon of the type.

  15. #89
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    I think together we could shed some light on this but it would require a whole new thread. The difference between real world and what some think is a long road.
    The m14 is a fine weapon but it is not a replacement for the job the M4 does.
    Designated marksman were give m14's all over the place. For some it was the first time they used a weapon of the type.
    Indeed. The M14 had they shortest service life of all infantry rifles. The M16 series has had the longest. While that isn't the end all and be all definition of which is "better," it certainly says SOMETHING about the relative merits of the two systems.

    I'll gladly share my thoughts (oops, too late!) on these weapons if you want to make the thread... :)
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  16. #90
    Senior Member Array RubenZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    RGV,Tx
    Posts
    557
    I doubt glocks, m&p's would have done that poorly in test.
    Glock 20sf, Glock 19 gen4, Glock 26 gen3, Colt 1911 Series 80

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

colt 1911 cqbp
,

colt cqbp

,
colt cqbp 1911
,
colt marsoc
,
colt marsoc 1911
,
colt marsoc pistol
,

cqbp

,
marsoc 1911
,
marsoc colt
,
marsoc colt 45
,
marsoc contract
,
marsoc pistol
Click on a term to search for related topics.