Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Black Rifle Forum' started by WoodenPlank, Apr 20, 2012.
Isn't the lowest bidder system wonderful?
Link to the article on Gearscout.
Now let's see just how badly they can screw it up.....
They've already got DPMS and Bushmaster, so they know how NOT to do it.....
No kidding. With .mil inspectors up their butts, one would HOPE they could turn out a weapon that was actually worth a crap, especially since they now have access to the TDP. Time will tell, I suppose.
I sure as hell wouldn't feel comfortable taking an M4 into combat, that was made by Remington.
Leave it be, and let Colt make the damn things.......as an Infantryman, I don't need to worry about whether or not my M4 is going to hold up in the long run.
Never seem to have issues with the Remington 700's or 870's so I don't see why a M-4 would be any different.
I'd carry one.
I'm afraid of things I don't understand.....such as why the .MIL decided to give the contract to someone with a short track record of making an Assault Rifle. The Remington RGP would be nice to see though.
Remington does make a damn good Shotgun and Bolt-Gun, but I'm hesitant to use one of their AR's over in the sandbox until I know its g2g.
Don't get me wrong; this could prove to be a good thing for the civilian AR market as well.
This may be a preview of what we could expect to see soon-
Valid point. Also interesting that this happens right after NBC ran another bit of anti-Remington propaganda.
Haven't seen you around the BRF lately, Stick. Where ya been?
The twaddle cool aid drinkers "Only Colt--everything else is crap" choir boys over at M4Carbine will be stepping all over themselves explaining this one away. Oh, wait--FN was good enough too - instead of Colt.
Great point. Those two do have a wee bit of military use don't they
I think they can produce a quality M4 if they choose to. Look at all the companies making weapons in early 1942 that had never done so before. They made them well and in huge numbers.
To me, we know remy can make good guns, and if they get through the testing I'd have no issue carrying one. For my money though, I buy nothing but colt for myself
I'm sure they can produce if they have too. Now they have too.
Mil-spec is mil-spec. If the guns are made to the standards laid out in the contract, they should work as well as any other brand.
TDY for schools, and shoot house courses, and just bought a house. Been a busy little boy for the last couple of months. I still follow the BRF, but for the most part you guys have been so on the spot about most stuff I haven't really seen anything to chime in about.
Between you, FAA, Murph, and AI, our views are so close to the same on many topics that the most I can say is +1.
Article reads that Remington to go on an OEM parts buying binge. Which if they do will definitely dry the market up fast as it is depleted already.
Wouldn't Remington be able to tool their own in their NY plants you think? DPMS does their (albeit not the greatest) kits in house.
Or would the tooling costs to setup that operation of producing small detent pins, triggers & springs be too expensive?
I miss the the courses, schools and shoot houses.
With the TDP, and government inspectors they can't substitute 'anything' and get away with it for long.
So in theory, any new Remington (military production) M4 should be good to go.
Time will tell. Maybe they'll leak that theory (build crap that actually works to spec) over to the other side of their production. We all know Remington has a seperate LE/Military production line for LE/Mil weaponry, with higher QC, so presumably these will be built there.
Whats next, the Army buying DPMS M4s?
Pretty sure the line about them buying up parts was speculative. They will probably be buying up receiver forgings at a pretty high rate, but I would think (and hope) that most everything else would be made in house to conform to TDP.