Colt CM901

[275RLTW]

http://www.defensereview.com/dr-exclusive-scar-who-meet-the-colt-cm901-modular-multi-caliber-7-62mm-nato5-56mm-nato-battle-carbinesbrrifle-for-u-s-military-special-operations-forces-sof-and-general-infantry-forces-gif/



Interesting.... 1 lower, multiple uppers, multiple calibers. Ignore the Colt vs. LMT vs. whoever battle and look at the concept here. Going back & forth between Iraq & Afgan & other places, guys are having to have several weapon systems to accomidate for each AOR. Pain in the ASS, both operationally and logistically. Now, possibly use same lower & grab whatever upper config you need based upon misssion requirements. Does this mean the guys are carrying less gear...nope. It also doesn't mean they're carring more. Those of you picturing guys running around with 5 different uppers in a backpack are unrealistic. What it could mean is that units wouldn't need several guns for each shooter. 1 lower with several uppers (depending on unit needs). No need to buy or train with seperate weapon systems, just the necessary uppers. Switching uppers & entire gun (for caliber) has always been used, now we could use 1 lower for all these options. Means less items in armsrooms, less costs to transport, more money can go where needed (whole other conversation).

As I said...interesting.

[tmckay2]

this might have been mentioned or talked about in the article, i only read about half to two thirds of the article, but what about the buffer systems? wouldn't they have to be changed out?

[Sixgun]

I've been waiting for one since FEBURARY.[Bang] Awesome rifle and it's a colt.[Tooth]

[NukeRJ]

http://www.defensereview.com/dr-exclusive-scar-who-meet-the-colt-cm901-modular-multi-caliber-7-62mm-nato5-56mm-nato-battle-carbinesbrrifle-for-u-s-military-special-operations-forces-sof-and-general-infantry-forces-gif/



Interesting.... 1 lower, multiple uppers, multiple calibers. Ignore the Colt vs. LMT vs. whoever battle and look at the concept here. Going back & forth between Iraq & Afgan & other places, guys are having to have several weapon systems to accomidate for each AOR. Pain in the ASS, both operationally and logistically. Now, possibly use same lower & grab whatever upper config you need based upon misssion requirements. Does this mean the guys are carrying less gear...nope. It also doesn't mean they're carring more. Those of you picturing guys running around with 5 different uppers in a backpack are unrealistic. What it could mean is that units wouldn't need several guns for each shooter. 1 lower with several uppers (depending on unit needs). No need to buy or train with seperate weapon systems, just the necessary uppers. Switching uppers & entire gun (for caliber) has always been used, now we could use 1 lower for all these options. Means less items in armsrooms, less costs to transport, more money can go where needed (whole other conversation).

As I said...interesting.

This still doesn't solve the issue of money. This platform has the same drawbacks as the SCAR system. The army would have to replace its entire inventory of M4 and M16 lowers, i.e. cost prohibitive.
The reason the SCAR did not get picked up in 5.56 for USASOC is due to the overall cost being out of budget. The carbine and LR SCAR 17 was fielded to ODA's to replace the aging M14 - but with the continuing resolve in place for all armed forces budgets, any new weapon systems will not be fielded enmass for some time. A big reason the HK 416 contract fell through. Crane is the defense contractor that services all military weapons, the current inventory is full of perfectly good M4's, and only require rebarreling. So the military looks at it as why replace a perfectly good rifle that has all the support aspects in place. Perhaps over time we will see the platforms trickle in, but the SCAR is still under testing in SOCOM and I doubt the Colt will be able to catch up . It is unfortunate that the selection process is highly political as well. Its always good to know someone on the contracting committee!!

[275RLTW]

This Colt only requires a lower purchase vice an entire weapon system. I remember hundreds of Colts being swapped out for LMT MRPs just for the barrel change option. Then addional purchases of SR-25's for 1/2 the guys. If i'm not mistaken, the current supply of uppers (5.56 & 7.62) in inventory is compatable with the Colt, again making it just a lower purchase. Still cheaper than fielding those SCAR's. Politics aside, Colt has and always will be a major supplier, regardless of how many people at FN know someone. FN needs to work on a lighter SAW, not a overpriced plastic toy for a rifle.

[NukeRJ]

This Colt only requires a lower purchase vice an entire weapon system. I remember hundreds of Colts being swapped out for LMT MRPs just for the barrel change option. Then addional purchases of SR-25's for 1/2 the guys. If i'm not mistaken, the current supply of uppers (5.56 & 7.62) in inventory is compatable with the Colt, again making it just a lower purchase. Still cheaper than fielding those SCAR's. Politics aside, Colt has and always will be a major supplier, regardless of how many people at FN know someone. FN needs to work on a lighter SAW, not a overpriced plastic toy for a rifle.

Look again at the colt cm platform. It is not compatible with current uppers. And uppers curretly in service are LMT. As for the barrel change mrp. It was never fielded with socom cuz it could not pass trials. And I don't know what unit you were with, but the sr-25 was issued in small qtys. 2 per team for group and one per sniper squad for infantry. That doesn't equal half of any group of guys... The system is awesome just like the scar. But again, it won't be replacing anything anytime soon. Units can't even get training ammo due to budget freezes, much less new guns.

[tmckay2]

buffer systems?

[275RLTW]

buffer systems?
same, no change!

[tmckay2]

interesting. how does that work? seems between different calibers you would need drastically differen't buffers

[mcantar18c]

Maybe I just didn't read far enough, but how are they going from 5.56 to 7.62NATO mags without swapping lowers? As far as I know, the rounds use different mags, and they aren't interchangeable...

[Bailey Guns]

Look again at the colt cm platform. It is not compatible with current uppers.

Are you sure about that because the article from Defense Review says differently:


3) The CM901 universal lower receiver will accept any/all legacy MILSPEC 5.56mm NATO AR rifle/carbine/SBR upper receivers already in the U.S. military inventory, including the, Colt M4/M4A1 Carbine 14.5″ AR carbine , M4 Commando 11.5″ AR SBR, MK18/CQBR (Close Quarters Battle Receiver) 10.3″ AR SBR, and M16A3/A4 20″ DGI rifle uppers. The CM901 lower will also accept the Colt LE6940 16″ monolithic upper and Colt LE6920 16″ M4/M4A1 Carbine-type uppers.

[spyder]

Maybe I just didn't read far enough, but how are they going from 5.56 to 7.62NATO mags without swapping lowers? As far as I know, the rounds use different mags, and they aren't interchangeable...
The magwell accepts both 223 and 308 mags, it adapts itself to whichever you put into it.

[275RLTW]

Look again at the colt cm platform. It is not compatible with current uppers. It is according to the article...

And uppers curretly in service are LMT. As for the barrel change mrp. It was never fielded with socom cuz it could not pass trials. Again, wrong.


And I don't know what unit you were with, but the sr-25 was issued in small qtys. 2 per team for group and one per sniper squad for infantry. That doesn't equal half of any group of guys... not our arms room. Sniper teams carried bolt guns/Barretts. Correction: 40 SR-25's per company




The system is awesome just like the scar. But again, it won't be replacing anything anytime soon. Units can't even get training ammo due to budget freezes, much less new guns. USASOC has their own budget independent of regulary Army that gets approved (and increased) each year. You should know this from your position there in the S shops.

[Pancho Villa]

I keep hearing "cost prohibitive" as a reason to never upgrade our weapons systems for the infantry. Has anyone put a dollar amount on that?

Let's say we phase it out, giving only deploying troops the new arms, kind of how the US switched from the 1903 to the M1 Garand, or the M14 to the M16. Over a period of years you go from it being the shiny new thing to everyone except the Marines and NG being issued them.

100,000 units per year, lets high-ball it and say total cost per unit is $1500 (to account for parts and armorer training):

$150 million.

Thats 0.02% of the military's budget. It seems like a vanishingly small amount of money to divert away from other things in order to give more flexibility and effectiveness to troops going overseas.

[Pancho Villa]

Of course, this is all theoretical. The US miliary has known since the '20s what the best riifle round for infantry combat was.

.276 pederson
.260 british
.270 british
6.8spc

Going back 90 years people who know have been asking for something better, objectively proving what would be better, and then not getting it.

[spyder]

[ROFL1] I didn't think this thread would get this much attention... Now it's level headed folks arguing with operators, and pancho has entered the thread! [ROFL1][LOL]





[Pop]