+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Colts new (APS) The 416 Killer ?

  1. #11
    HKPRO PREMIUM PARTNER

    Join Date : Oct 2011
    Location : TX
    Posts : 324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tlrgsxr View Post
    Unless I'm missing something, you guys are confusing this... Leitner-Wise Defense with this... LWRC International, LLC
    Leitner-wise was the original owner/Corp name and they had customer service and quality issues towards the end before being bought out and becoming LWRC and then LWRCI. Some issues here or there from postings on other forums, including unconfirmed reports of DEA turning in their rifles after tours in Afghanistan due to problems developing. I know from personal experience, running an m6a3, that it ran well but is front heavy and I wouldn't necessarily trust return to zero for optics mounted on the top rail. Some cam pin drag occurs as well, even after I installed a Adams arms spring to the rear of the bolt. Otherwise, to each his own. FN would do well when they enter, especially if the scar 17 5.56 conversion they're supposedly working on with SOCOM comes to fruition. I'd love to see what Glock will submit as I always thought it would be cool to see a Glock rifle. Beretta will probably submit the ARX-160, a rifle that will likely sell like hotcakes in the civilian market if durability holds up. Should be an interesting competition, but remember that best is not always what gets picked. It's typically what meets requirements at the lowest price.

  2. #12
    Gets the Shakes if No HK Contact in 24 Hour Period

    Join Date : Aug 2000
    Posts : 914

    Default

    I hear you, but they are now two separate companies, apparently each with their own submission.

  3. #13
    HKPRO PREMIUM PARTNER
    G3Kurz's Avatar
    Join Date : Feb 2005
    Location : Where the rivers meet
    Age : 54
    Posts : 3,148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenkers View Post
    Here's the list with the contenders listed on FBO.gov:

    ISRAEL WEAPONS INDUSTRUIES (I.W.I) LTD.
    DYNETICS, INC.
    SHARPS RIFLE COMPANY
    COLT DEFENSE LLC
    HECKLER & KOCH DEFENSE INC.
    TEMPLARS AND CRUSADERS
    A2Z SUPPLY CORP
    DANIEL DEFENSE, INC.
    STAG ARMS, LLC
    LEITNER-WISE DEFENSE, INC.
    SIG SAUER INC.
    GLOCK INC
    STRIKER ARMS, LLC
    ADVANCED PRECISION, LLC
    LWRC INTERNATIONAL, LLC
    AGUA HOLDGINGS
    ACCURATE TOOL & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
    RONICH CORP.
    ZDF IMPORT/EXPORT, LLC
    CRITICAL DIMENSIONS LLC
    A L ROTH WINNING PROPOSALS
    ADAPTIVE CONSULTING & TRAINING SERVICES, LLC
    S.I. DEFENSE, INCORPORATED
    WM. C. ANDERSON, INC.
    OTIS PRODUCTS, INC
    Mil-dot Integrated Technologies, LLC

    It seems that it is not mandatory to be on the list, since FN is missing. Many of them seem to be generic military contractors that never produced a rifle before. They possibly just buy parts and slap them together.
    This is not the "contender" list. It is only those companies that registered to receive the RFP package. Many will do so with no intent to submit a thing - just to get their head under the tent or look for subcontracting ops. We already know LWRC, Ruger, S&W and KAC did not submit (deadline was 27 Oct.). Often times a different entity, their proposal prep firm for instance, will request the package for the actual manufactuer (Remington, FN, etc.) to in part hide their participation.

    The US Army did not prohibit any singel vendor from submitting more than one proposal contrary to what we initially heard. Direct from PM-SW they said it was okay but they were trying to limit the number of proposals to have to eval and test.

    It is generally believed across the industry that an improved M4-style weapon has the best chances of winning here as that is what the Army is asking for. There are NO points for caliber or weapon modularity so the ARX-160 and FN SCAR Universal Receiver have no real advantage and infact their unique controls would be a detractor in the eval by troops trained on M4's and M16's.

    Most within industry also feel that the ongoing US Army M4 PIP program and M4 recompete for 70K-100K more M4's/M4A1's will also adversely affect chances of an IC fielding success. With no increase in down range performance beyond that of the standard 5.56mm NATO M4, it is a "predictable failure" at best, the 4th (5th if you include SCAR L) since the XM8 program in the early 2000's. Your tax dolalrs at work to the tune of @ $40M JUST for the IC testing and downselect.

    G3Kurz
    Last edited by G3Kurz; 11-05-2011 at 05:54 PM.

  4. #14
    Member

    Join Date : Feb 2010
    Posts : 56

    Default

    Now, that makes sense. Thanks G3k!

  5. #15
    Member

    Join Date : Sep 2009
    Posts : 56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post

    Under the technical specification is says weight is 6.89 lbs....the weight on the ( lwrc a2 )is 7.62lbs.. how do they get this thing so light with a piston ?
    the colt has a shorter rail and lwrci M6A1, M6A2 and M6A3 leave the factory with heavier profile barrels. most of the extra weight is attributed to using the heavier barrel and not the piston as a lot of piston detractors incorrectly surmise.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

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

arx 160 release date

,
beretta arx 100 release date
,

beretta arx 160 civilian

,
beretta arx 160 civilian release
,

beretta arx 160 civilian release date

,

beretta arx 160 release date

,
beretta arx-160 civilian
,

beretta arx-160 release date

,

colt advanced piston carbine

,

colt advanced piston system

,

colt aps

,
critical dimensions llc
Click on a term to search for related topics.