imschur

I thought you meant P Town RI LOL Looks like fun buddy

I love the looks.. <laughs>

Ill get one to try so I can compare with the TacOps-1 which is my current go to

I would take what you can have now. These things were like gold a few years back. We are almost there again.

yep just waiting for Bloomberg to buy the whole lot of them

I have a CETME, It's fun to shoot but Century did a pretty crude job with a lot of these. Mine had trouble going bang when new. After some research I learned that mine like many others had metal chips in the bolt that was preventing the firing pin from going forward enough to set off the primer. Stripped it down cleaned it and it's fine now. Re-assembly was a little confusing. Had to look it up on the internet. Too me this is one of those guns you buy just to have because it's different. It's not very accurate and I would not bet my life on it. Magazines are cheap. PTR's are much better for sure but they arent HK's either.

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/11/28/gao-denies-latest-colt-m4-protest-could-this-be-it/ The lights are on and the credits are rolling in the Army’s M4 contract drama. And, the story doesn’t appear to be ending well for Colt Defense. The GAO has released a decision dismissing Colt’s latest protest of the $84m M4 contract award to Remington. The latest decision, dated November 16, 2012, dismisses Colts protest of the Army’s interpretation of the M4 technical data package licensing agreement. This is a complicated issue, but it’s dismissal should clear the way for the Remington to resume work on $83.9m M4 contract. It should be noted that the GAO says they “will not resolve a dispute involving interpretation of a license agreement… because this involves a matter of contract administration not subject to GAO’s review.” In effect, this allows Colt to take the matter before a government contract appeals board or the Court of Federal Claims. The Army responded to our questions about the status of the contract award by saying they would have a statement for us in the morning. Colt hasn’t yet responded to our email. And, Remington spokesperson Teddy Novin didn’t have much to say tonight, “We are awaiting next steps and remain confident that the Army will make the right decision for its personnel and the American taxpayer.” No doubt, Remington is holding its breath as they await word that the Army has cleared the docket of any other protests and that their award still stands. While we already reported on the first, July 24, 2012 protest decision, we were working from extracts provided by the GAO and with both decisions now in hand, we can shed some light on the basis of Colt’s protests as well as issues surrounding the award itself. Quick Recap: The source selection report presented to the source selection authority determined Remington represented the best value to the government. Their decision was based on four criteria – Remington presented the best production capability approach, utilized small business appropriately, showed satisfactory past performance of government contract work and had the lowest price. August 19, 2011: Army issues a solicitation for up to 120k M4/M4A1 carbines. April 20, 2012: Army awards contract to Remington April 26, 2012: Colt protests the following: The way the Army performed its price evaluation. Army’s evaluation of Remington’s past performance. Army’s evaluation of Remington’s production capability. [*]July 24, 2012: GAO sustains one of Colt’s three challenges. Namely, the way the Army applied the M4 royalty adjustment to bids. Dismisses others. [*]Sept. 12, 2012: Army issues updated solicitation. Submission deadline is Oct. 9, 2012. [*]Sept. 20-ish, 2012-: Colt files protest of adjusted royalty terms with Army. [*]Sept. 28, 2012: Army dismisses protest. [*]October 9, 2012: Colt files protest of adjusted royalty terms with GAO. [*]Nov. 16, 2012: GAO dismisses Colt’s protest. According to the GAO’s July 24 decision, Colt was unimpressed with the way the Army evaluated Remington’s production capability and their past performance. Both are criterion in the source selection authority’s determination of the manufacturer’s suitability for the contract. Colt also raised issues with the way the Army calculated the royalties that would have to be paid by any offeror that didn’t have rights to the M4s technical data package; essentially any company other than Colt. PRODUCTION CAPABILITY: As far as the Army’s evaluation of Remington’s production capability, Colt says they should have been rated higher than Remington since Colt has the facilities, machinery and tooling already in place to build the guns. Remington does not. The GAO agreed with the Army’s stance that Remington has “more than ample facilities to meet the requirement with no additional facilities required. . . . Remington has some, but not all the required key tooling and equipment in place, but its proposal provided a very detailed plan for key tooling and equipment…” The GAO concluded that the Army is capable of making this determination and denied Colt’s protest. PAST PERFORMANCE: The next protest issue dealt with the way the Army evaluated Remington’s past contracting performance. The Army determined that Remington only had two contracts on which it could base it’s rating for past performance. Initially, the source selection board (SSB) decided that the two contracts didn’t offer a enough information on which to base a “meaningful performance risk prediction”. The board assigned a rating of “unknown confidence” for the past performance criterion. Later, the source selection advisory council, whom the SSB reported to, judged those two contracts enough to raise the rating from “unknown confidence” up to “satisfactory confidence”. According to the decision, the GAO finds “nothing unreasonable about the agency’s assignment of a satisfactory confidence rating to Remington’s past performance and we find that the conclusion is supported by the underlying record.” PRICE EVALUATION: The GAO upheld Colt’s initial protest about the way the Army applied the royalty fees to the offerors price but they denied the second. The solicitation’s language suggested that the Army would simply tack 5% on to any offerors price if they didn’t own or have license to use technology or technical data that belongs to Colt. Here’s the actual language: “The royalty rate is 5%. If an offeror does not indicate that it is the owner or a licensee of the technology/technical data, its offer will be evaluated by adding an amount equal to the royalty to its proposed prices.“ Instead of applying a flat rate, the Army went through the carbine submissions part-by-part to determine just how much of the current M4 design was still subject to the 1997 M4 Carbine Addendum to Technical Data Sales and Patent License Agreement. The Army broke the gun down into it’s components to arrive at an aggregate percentage representing the Colt proprietary parts and applied the 5% surcharge to the cost of only those parts. This is germane because Colt likely relied on the solicitation’s blanket 5% guide when gaming their price. If Remington’s gun cost $1000, then it would be subject to a $50 royalty adjustment. Colt no doubt used this math as a basis to estimate their competitors prices. When the Army used a different formula, Colt contended, the playing field was no longer level. At issue is the wording, “an amount equal to the royalty”. Colt argued this meant 5% as it stated in the sentence preceding it. But, the Army meant the amount would be calculated based on the 5% royalty but didn’t elaborate further, leaving room for ambiguity. In short, the GAO agreed and sustained this portion of their protest. The Army responded by putting out an amended solicitation laying out just how this calculation would be done and invited the offerors to resubmit their proposals. That brings us to the latest Colt protest and the second GAO decision, dated November 16, also based on royalty calculations. PRICE EVALUATION II- The amended solicitation went out with an attachment laying out how the royalty would be calculated. The solicitation also listed weapon configurations and the appropriate royalty percentage to be applied to each. Colt had a look at the amended solicitation and protested with the Army. The Army denied the protest, then Colt protested with the GAO. The basis for their second price evaluation protest was based on the fact that Colt and the Army haven’t yet agreed on the royalty schedule at the heart of this M4 contract. Colt says that since they haven’t come to an agreement on the actual royalties they are due, then there is no way the Army can accurately calculate the royalty rate. The GAO applied logic and determined that since the basis for the Army’s calculation was laid plainly out for all the offerors, then things were fair. Whether it was based on estimates or real numbers is irrelevant. They denied the protest. Now What: It’s up to the Army to re-award the contract, or in the case that Remington Defense is still the awardee, lift the stop order and let them get to making the guns. That is, unless Colt Defense takes their case to a DoD contracting board of appeals or files in Federal Court.

Polymer rifle magazines, preferred by many troops for their durability, have been banned by the Marine Corps, according to a new administrative message published Monday. Effective immediately, only standard-issue 5.56mm metal magazines are approved, according to the message, signed by Lt. Gen. Richard Mills, the Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for combat development and integration. Marine officials began ad hoc bans on polymer magazines last year, citing concerns over their lack of compatibility with select weapons. The new message from Mills, who doubles as the commanding general of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, makes the ban official across the force. Companies that produce polymer magazines are releasing new products they say are designed fix compatibility issues. This summer, for instance, Magpul released its third-generation polymer magazine, which it bills as compatible with the M27. It remains to be seen whether this may sway the Corps to reverse its ban. The message announces a handful of updates stemming from the Corps’ most recent marksmanship symposium, held in October. Marine officials reviewed everything from approved combat equipment to marksmanship training and education. James Sanborne is a Staff Writer for Marine Corps Times

Large caliber rifle LAR Grizzly and LAR Manufacturing have been acquired by Remington / The Freedom Group. Remington has not yet sent out a press release about this acquisition, but Ethan at Aftermath Gun Club spoke to the LAR Manufacturing who confirmed the news. LAR has been in business for a long time, at one time or another making pistols, AR-15s, large caliber rifles and tripod mounts for the military. Today they are best known for their LAR Grizzly T-50 .50 BMG rifles and LAR OPS-4 AR-15 upper receivers <blockquote> Headquartered in West Jordan Utah, LAR Manufacturing has been producing precision engineered firearms and firearms components for over 40 years. Founded in 1968, LAR began manufacturing of M16 upper receivers for the Rock Island U.S. Armament Command; LAR won other government contracts such as the M3 Tripod Mounts for the M2 machine gun as well as the M85 Barrel extension subassembly, and the M240 machine gun. Due to our machining capabilities, LAR launched the Grizzly Mark 1 handgun, “The Browning 1911 on steroids” as it was coined for so many years. Due to our expertise in precision machining and firearms, LAR created the GRIZZLY BIG BOAR .50BMG rifle over 20 years ago. LAR has since launched a new .50BMG Tactical Rifle. LAR never stopped building firearms components for the M16 and AR15 platforms. LAR has acted and continues to be a contract manufacturing facility for some of the world’s largest AR15 brand names in the industry. LAR has continued its Research and Development and developed a precision machined side charged upper assembly that makes the AR15 platform more functional, durable, accurate for right and left charged models as well as ambidextrous models. LAR Manufacturing continues to innovate and expand. Skilled employees work in a multi-million dollar, state-of-the-art manufacturing complex covering over 35,000 square feet. Research and development is mission critical and exciting new products are on the drawing board. Indeed, the future is bright at LAR Manufacturing. </blockquote>

Heres a good thread for you. Armalite LPK's have become my go to on my AR15's. I have not had the need for an AR10 LPK yet.

Welcome

The supply of everything is drying up. Took me 18 months to get my build complete. That was 2008-2009

Here's a similar topic

Very cool. 270 is a very versatile cartridge. (Too bad it's not a wsm. I know where you can get a few boxes of ammo <laughs> )

Found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:270_WSM_and_270_Win.jpg

I think the cases are completely different.

Hell yeah then I can sell you my tri rail LOL and your still ahead <laughs>

Damn you....Im going to sell the Tri Rail and get that

Whats that different trigger guard? Looks PS90'ish FS2KSTD sold me his tri-rail. Probably not going to use it though LOL

The FS2000 wanted to come out and play with different camo today today

That sucks. Shit like this pisses me off.

OMG thay are soo cute. Now comes the painful wait.

Upper Receiver Block Lower Receiver Vise Block Roll Pin Holders to name a few

No the barrel extension come properly installed on the barrel

Let me say that I love S&W firearms however that 4006 was dinner plate accurate at 25 yards. The magazines kept saying the ammo needed to improve LOL. Then the gun on two occasions sent parts flying at me. One was the rear sight. I forget the other. It was happy day when I traded it for my P12 back when Para was good too LOL