Colt CM901

[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...

[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.

[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]

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!

[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.