Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The U.S. Army gives the M4 contract to Colt Fire Arms, even though Troops in the field stated that the H&K 416 is 3x a better Rifle. Why do we allow our troops to go into battle with a shitty Weapon??? The 416 has been teasted by U.S. Special Forces, Navy SEALS, DEALTA and SEAL TEAM 6. But our Government seems to think they know more than our combat proven Warriors. FUCKING SAD

Hint: Colt has Army insiders and H&K does not.

H&K is a German company, you dolt.

Grizalltheway wrote:H&K is a German company, you dolt.

IF that was the case azz-jerk, why does Glock issue most of the PD Departments in our country??????

mrklean wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:H&K is a German company, you dolt.

IF that was the case azz-jerk, why does Glock issue most of the PD Departments in our country??????

Glock is Austrian.

M240 is made in Belgium. AT4 is made in Sweden.

I don't procure firearms for the FedGov but it would appear that NATO partners are not precluded from military sales.

Its an economic stimulus package. How would it look for the administration to decry outsourcing of jobs overseas if our entire military forces are supplied by foreign companies?

Why do you hate America klean?

DSUrocks07 wrote:Its an economic stimulus package. How would it look for the administration to decry outsourcing of jobs overseas if our entire military forces are supplied by foreign companies?

Why do you hate America klean?

There's also the concept that equipping the armed forces shouldn't be confused with economic stimulus.

93henfan wrote:M240 is made in Belgium. AT4 is made in Sweden.

I don't procure firearms for the FedGov but it would appear that NATO partners are not precluded from military sales.

Fine, but how would it look if the 'flagship' weapon of the US Army were German-made? Citdog would have an aneurysm, for starters.

Ibanez wrote:

mrklean wrote:
IF that was the case azz-jerk, why does Glock issue most of the PD Departments in our country??????

Glock is Austrian.

Throw another shrimp on the barbie, mate!

Ibanez wrote:

mrklean wrote:
IF that was the case azz-jerk, why does Glock issue most of the PD Departments in our country??????

Glock is Austrian.

yes it is

Grizalltheway wrote:

93henfan wrote:M240 is made in Belgium. AT4 is made in Sweden.

I don't procure firearms for the FedGov but it would appear that NATO partners are not precluded from military sales.

Fine, but how would it look if the 'flagship' weapon of the US Army were German-made? Citdog would have an aneurysm, for starters.

the question should be asked, why does it take a german company to get our weapon working like a real combat rifle

DSUrocks07 wrote:Its an economic stimulus package. How would it look for the administration to decry outsourcing of jobs overseas if our entire military forces are supplied by foreign companies?

Why do you hate America klean?

h&k had a factory in VA so no outsourcing.

Grizalltheway wrote:

93henfan wrote:M240 is made in Belgium. AT4 is made in Sweden.

I don't procure firearms for the FedGov but it would appear that NATO partners are not precluded from military sales.

Fine, but how would it look if the 'flagship' weapon of the US Army were German-made? Citdog would have an aneurysm, for starters.

The HK Mk23 has already been used by USSOCOM for years, beating out the Colt OHWS I might add. Again, I don't understand the concern. NATO has had interchangeable weapons for years.

There is strategic value to using indigenous weapons.

In WWI, the Germans had better rifles and better airplanes.

At the start of WWII the Germans had better weapons and Japan had the best fighter in the world.

In Korea, the MiG 15 was far superior to the F-86.

I have no problem with us using the Colt for standard GI issue. I have also fired the HK and there is a difference but not enough of a difference to utilize a foreign manufacturer.


Sent from the center of the universe.

CID1990 wrote:There is strategic value to using indigenous weapons.

In WWI, the Germans had better rifles and better airplanes.

At the start of WWII the Germans had better weapons and Japan had the best fighter in the world.

In Korea, the MiG 15 was far superior to the F-86.

I have no problem with us using the Colt for standard GI issue. I have also fired the HK and there is a difference but not enough of a difference to utilize a foreign manufacturer.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I want the best weapon for my money and the 416 is heads above the colt.

mrklean wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Fine, but how would it look if the 'flagship' weapon of the US Army were German-made? Citdog would have an aneurysm, for starters.

the question should be asked, why does it take a german company to get our weapon working like a real combat rifle

I'm taking a shot in the dark here but perhaps that gun passed many guidelines among which technically sufficient at the lowest price. The government doesn't always buy the #1 tool. They buy (or at least try) to procure at the most cost effective price point. The Navy is this way and so was the Marine Corps when I was affiliated with them. I'm not sure about the Army or Air Force.

CID1990 wrote:There is strategic value to using indigenous weapons.

In WWI, the Germans had better rifles and better airplanes.

At the start of WWII the Germans had better weapons and Japan had the best fighter in the world.

In Korea, the MiG 15 was far superior to the F-86.

I have no problem with us using the Colt for standard GI issue. I have also fired the HK and there is a difference but not enough of a difference to utilize a foreign manufacturer.


Sent from the center of the universe.

The Germans had amazing weapons like the MP40. We were still using weapons from WW1 at the beginning of WW2. But the Germans over engineer. Many Panzers were left on the side of the road b/c it was impossible to repair them in the field. On the contrary, the M4 Sherman wasn't as powerful as the Panzer, but they were easier to repair and more of them. Same with the USSR T-34.

On a side note, it's amazing that during the depression we were out producing the Germans and the Japanese.

Ibanez wrote:

CID1990 wrote:There is strategic value to using indigenous weapons.

In WWI, the Germans had better rifles and better airplanes.

At the start of WWII the Germans had better weapons and Japan had the best fighter in the world.

In Korea, the MiG 15 was far superior to the F-86.

I have no problem with us using the Colt for standard GI issue. I have also fired the HK and there is a difference but not enough of a difference to utilize a foreign manufacturer.


Sent from the center of the universe.

The Germans had amazing weapons like the MP40. We were still using weapons from WW1 at the beginning of WW2. But the Germans over engineer. Many Panzers were left on the side of the road b/c it was impossible to repair them in the field. On the contrary, the M4 Sherman wasn't as powerful as the Panzer, but they were easier to repair and more of them. Same with the USSR T-34.

On a side note, it's amazing that during the depression we were out producing the Germans and the Japanese.

Why? We had/have a major natural resource advantage over them, and the Germans were completely crippled after WWI.

Ibanez wrote:

mrklean wrote:
the question should be asked, why does it take a german company to get our weapon working like a real combat rifle

I'm taking a shot in the dark here but perhaps that gun passed many guidelines among which technically sufficient at the lowest price. The government doesn't always buy the #1 tool. They buy (or at least try) to procure at the most cost effective price point. The Navy is this way and so was the Marine Corps when I was affiliated with them. I'm not sure about the Army or Air Force.

Hey, you're talking about my job now. The correct term is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (or LPTA) evaluation. The Government uses LPTA far less than it does Tradeoff. In Tradeoff, price is one of several evaluation factors and is often less important than the technical, management and past performance. Tradeoff allows you to establish a competite range of offerors, enter discussions with offerors, and obtain final proposal revisions. It gives a tough negotiator like me a stiffy.

In twelve years as a federal procurement official, I've only been involved in one LPTA buy. I told them it was the wrong way to go and they used it anyway because it was the easy way out and I was overruled by a weak, lazy, and incompetent boss. As I knew would happen, they got a shitty product.

Here's a link to help you get to bed early: http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs ... m#P14_1918

mrklean wrote:

CID1990 wrote:There is strategic value to using indigenous weapons.

In WWI, the Germans had better rifles and better airplanes.

At the start of WWII the Germans had better weapons and Japan had the best fighter in the world.

In Korea, the MiG 15 was far superior to the F-86.

I have no problem with us using the Colt for standard GI issue. I have also fired the HK and there is a difference but not enough of a difference to utilize a foreign manufacturer.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I want the best weapon for my money and the 416 is heads above the colt.

Go join the Belgian Army then, Audie Murphy.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Germans

93henfan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I'm taking a shot in the dark here but perhaps that gun passed many guidelines among which technically sufficient at the lowest price. The government doesn't always buy the #1 tool. They buy (or at least try) to procure at the most cost effective price point. The Navy is this way and so was the Marine Corps when I was affiliated with them. I'm not sure about the Army or Air Force.

Hey, you're talking about my job now. The correct term is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (or LPTA) evaluation. The Government uses LPTA far less than it does Tradeoff. In Tradeoff, price is one of several evaluation factors and is often less important than the technical, management and past performance. Tradeoff allows you to establish a competite range of offerors, enter discussions with offerors, and obtain final proposal revisions. It gives a tough negotiator like me a stiffy.

In twelve years as a federal procurement official, I've only been involved in one LPTA buy. I told them it was the wrong way to go and they used it anyway because it was the easy way out and I was overruled by a weak, lazy, and incompetent boss. As I knew would happen, they got a shitty product.

Here's a link to help you get to bed early: http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs ... m#P14_1918

Really? LPTA is the rule here.


I'm not reading the FAR...again.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
The Germans had amazing weapons like the MP40. We were still using weapons from WW1 at the beginning of WW2. But the Germans over engineer. Many Panzers were left on the side of the road b/c it was impossible to repair them in the field. On the contrary, the M4 Sherman wasn't as powerful as the Panzer, but they were easier to repair and more of them. Same with the USSR T-34.

On a side note, it's amazing that during the depression we were out producing the Germans and the Japanese.

Why? We had/have a major natural resource advantage over them, and the Germans were completely crippled after WWI.

Oh I know, I just find it interesting that during a time in our country when the economy was struggling and people were out of work, the USA was still outperforming other countries. The rearmament that Hitler started did wonders for the German economy and made them prosperous( even through the defaulted on all the war debt).

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Why? We had/have a major natural resource advantage over them, and the Germans were completely crippled after WWI.

Oh I know, I just find it interesting that during a time in our country when the economy was struggling and people were out of work, the USA was still outperforming other countries. The rearmament that Hitler started did wonders for the German economy and made them prosperous( even through the defaulted on all the war debt).

We were behind on the Tank. In fact the early German tanks were created by an American. Remember, at that time, the government did not belive in a large standing Army.

CAA Flagship wrote:Germans