Colt’s Purchase of LWRC: Will US Troops Get a New Rifle?

[babue]

With Colt buying LWRC the rise of the 6.8SPC is coming. No reason for Colt to do this unless they saw a chance to make a big profit by pushing something new.

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/02/24/col...Newsletter

[BluntForceTrauma]

My Steaming Pile of Sheer Speculation:

First, no, US troops will NOT get a new rifle in 6.8 SPC. The US military is not THAT incompetent.

Second, with Colt having lost US military contracts to FN, they, no doubt, would like to service LWRC's Jordanian and Saudi palace guard contracts. But that begs the question: If it's such a fat, sweet contract, why doesn't Matech milk that cash cow dry and get their money's worth out of LWRC?

All this is off the top of my head. (I think it's Matech that had bought LWRC.)

Colt will, no doubt, TRY to steal business from FN by doing SOMETHING with LWRC, but I don't think they realize the performance is not there. Federal's magic loading is a 6.8 90-grainer? Is the extra 13 grains really THAT much more awesome than 5.56 77 grains?

John

[LRRPF52]

The fact that it was sold for $60 million indicates to me that something is going on. That's almost twice what DPMS was sold for to Freedom Group, and no way LWRC has anywhere near the volume DPMS did.

Another funny thing is that at SHOT, LWRC introduced a line of "Direct Impingement" AR15's with LWRC's signature component and assembly methods, which I found interesting.

[BluntForceTrauma]

The fact that it was sold for $60 million indicates to me that something is going on.

I suppose it's only fair to assume that Colt knows what they're doing. But it's not like they didn't already have their own piston-system, so I'd be surprised if they determined the LWRC piston was $60 million more superior. Is LWRC's manufacturing process THAT much superior to Colt's? The 6.8 is SAAMIed, it's not like they couldn't have made 6.8s any time they so chose.

I'd guess they're not looking at this technically, but financially, politically. Maybe Colt is dying to inherit ANY major contract in the absence of US military sales. Does anyone know what the Arab contracts were supposed to be worth?

Maybe they've got inside info on a big US LE buy? But that, again, begs the question why Colt couldn't service LE themselves.

Maybe it is a HUGE bet on the US sporting market using the new Six8 receiver. But, then, if it's so promising, why would Matech sell? Further, have they considered the competition from DPMS's new Gen II receivers? Would I want a Six8 receiver shooting 90-grains of Federal 6.8 or a DPMS in 6.5 Creedmoor? (OK, LR, in .260 for YOU! )

John

[WildBill3/75]

I doubt the six8 is their reasoning behind their purchase....as I don't see any reason they couldn't make a lower to accept the new magpul 6.8 mags.

Also isn't the normal projectile weight 110gr+
From the data charts and endless dead hogs I've seen all over the net the 6.8 looks superior to the standard issue 62gr 5.56. Wilson combat wouldn't jump completely behind the 6.8 if it was a ton of crap.

If you are hunting most engagements are within 400m...the 6.8 is an undisputed beast out of a short barrel in that range in the ar platform...which makes for a light compact ar15. Not to mention there is ammo to be found in stock all over!


For hunting within 400m between a 260 in the new dpms and a 6.8spc ii I'd rather have the 6.8.

[BluntForceTrauma]

WildBill, I agree the 6.8, along with the 65G, is a great lightweight hunting cartridge, for all the reasons you mentioned. I've never felt the need to criticize the 6.8 as a hunting cartridge. Far too libertarian for THAT. Use whatever the hell one's little wallet desires. It's all good. . . .

As I look at the growing Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) hunting market, it is just my ASSUMPTION that many of the newer hunters who move to the platform might like to stick to .308-based cartridges that they're more used to. Nothing against the technical aspects of the 6.8 as a pig and deer killer; I'd prefer it also to the heavier-recoiling cartridges as long as deer don't wear body armor!

But as a MILITARY cartridge, THEN I have major issues. Doesn't do enough better than 5.56 and doesn't do anything better than 6.5 Grendel. So it doesn't compute, for me, on the two-way range.

John

[WildBill3/75]

In my own experience all the threats I've seen engaged with 5.56 are neutralized pretty damn quickly. As for me, my section removed the mk12(5.56) from our armsroom due to perceived lack of knockdown power on target and the heavier hitting 308 big brother was our semi-auto weapon of choice.The 308 never gave me any issues, nor any of the other snipers that I knew that used it against soft targets. Granted shot placement is key with any caliber but I firmly believe that a larger diameter higher mass bullet should replace the 5.56 be it 6.8 or 6.5g. I'd prefer the 6.5g as it would do great in both an m4 type setup and also would shine in a mk12 setup.

I do believe that the 6.8/6.5g is just the right step-up in performance from the 5.56 that the individual soldier needs.

A mk12 setup in 6.5g would be great. With my SR25, body armor, ammo, water, and all my kit I was 300lbs. My body weight at the time was 190-195lb.

Only problem I foresee right now with this mentality is what I see as a weakness in the modified ar15 bolt, there have been a BUNCH of broken bolts on this forum. If they did this in a military application it is my opinion they should use the new GII platform which gives you access to a 308 bolt which gives the grendel a superior strength bolt. All they would need to do then is modify the magwell for 6.8/6.5 grendel.

I doubt this would be taken into consideration any time soon, especially with the current administration that is downsizing and gutting our military. Replacing not only a cartridge but also a whole weapon platform would be damn costly....if you replaced 5.56 you would also need to find a replacement for the SAW and MK46. Which might not be much of an issue if you could get a MK48 to cycle with the 6.8/6.5 grendel.

[woohoo]

Ya think??
http://fd-defense.com/index.php/home/fd-...&D_v_LWRCI

This is kinda like Magpul selling Bushmaster the ACR design that didn't work or couldn't be produced on an assembly line. Bushmaster bought it hook line and sinker.
Some acquisitions guy behind a desk that knows little about the mechanics of firearms thought it would be a good move.

Sounds like a 6.5 bullet in a 6.8 case and SIX5 rifle...LOL

[TheEnigma]

Every time a new cartridge is introduced, it changes the original well thought out plan of the AR 15 rifle. Gene designed a fabulous 20" rifle that functioned perfectly with the m193 cartridge it was designed for. When the m855 was introduced, much thought and research was put into assuring the the chamber and gas port pressures remained the same as not to affect reliability. Then they decided to chop 6" off the barrel, and and 5.5" off the gas length for the M4. This changed everything. Bolts and extractors are now subjected to considerably more stress. The gas port and chamber pressures doubled, and the gas port had to be shrunk. To add a new cartridge to the mix would simply add to the reliability issues the M4 already faces during heavy sustained fire, not to mention logistics. It wouldn't surprise me if they did change calibers in their infinite wisdom, but it would only heap more problems on an already problematic weapons system. Just my .02.

[middle man]

The price reported for the deal was much too large for the LWRC brand alone. However, Colt is reportedly buying both LWRC and Matech. Matech was a contract CNC machine shop for LWRC, when in 2008 the opportunity arose for Matech's owner to purchase LWRC. At 60 million, the combined sale makes a bit more sense.

Hard to predict precisely what strategy Colt is going to pursue following closure of the deal. Matech's production capacity should be a nice addition to Colt, yet beyond that I don't see LWRC product offerings enhancing the Colt brand. Perhaps Colt believes there to be further export contracts? Piston systems are a passing fad and will remain in small niche going forward. The added weight of a piston system is not necessarily worth the small benefit of cooler operation.

[stanc]

I suppose it's only fair to assume that Colt knows what they're doing. But it's not like they didn't already have their own piston-system, so I'd be surprised if they determined the LWRC piston was $60 million more superior. Is LWRC's manufacturing process THAT much superior to Colt's? The 6.8 is SAAMIed, it's not like they couldn't have made 6.8s any time they so chose.

IIRC what I read on 68forums, there have been some of the same types of problems with 6.8 SPC magazines, as have been experienced by Grendel shooters.

The Six8 lower receiver with its reconfigured mag well, together with the 30-round P-Mag that is optimized specifically for the 6.8 cartridge, reportedly corrects those reliability issues. It would also eliminate the possibility of a soldier inadvertently inserting a 6.8 mag into a 5.56 gun.

This action might also explain why Colt decided awhile back to not make 6.5 Grendel AR's...

[stanc]

Federal's magic loading is a 6.8 90-grainer? Is the extra 13 grains really THAT much more awesome than 5.56 77 grains?

I dunno about the Federal 90gr load, but the Hornady 115gr sure seems pretty awesome compared to the 77gr Mk262.

[BluntForceTrauma]

The fact that it was sold for $60 million indicates to me that something is going on.

Good detective work, Woohoo! I guess LR was definitely onto something when he sniffed out that something was up.

John

[middle man]

This action might also explain why Colt decided awhile back to not make 6.5 Grendel AR's...

To be fair Colt Competition (different company that has a license agreement with Colt's) decided to shelve their planned Grendel. There was a thread here back in fall. I never heard a definitive reason, however my professional guess would center on bolt service life or magazine reliability.

LWRC was nothing more than a design and assembly house...all their components were manufactured to spec by outside vendors (mostly by Matech). There's currently a suit pending against LWRC from a firearms designer claiming LWRC made use of his intellectual property in their rifle designs.

[stanc]

But as a MILITARY cartridge, THEN I have major issues. Doesn't do enough better than 5.56 and doesn't do anything better than 6.5 Grendel.

6.8 SPC does have one very significant advantage over 6.5 Grendel: The demonstrated ability to be used in belt-fed weapons.

[video=youtube;C5Gfho2qtwY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Gfho2qtwY[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Gfho2qtwY

[BluntForceTrauma]

Cool weapon. Seems like a solid concept. I'm surprised it's not more popular.

HOWEVER, let's keep this thread on Colt and LWRC. Thanks.

John

[stanc]

Cool weapon. Seems like a solid concept. I'm surprised it's not more popular.

The accompanying text on YouTube says it's a prototype, so it may be the only one in existence. That's probably why it isn't popular.

HOWEVER, let's keep this thread on Colt and LWRC. Thanks.

Okay, John. But, I didn't post the video to publicize the Ares weapon, just to provide visual confirmation that 6.8 SPC has been shown to work in belt-fed machine guns. US military contracts for carbines in a caliber other than 5.56mm would not likely happen without certainty that belt-fed weapons like the M249 LMG could also be converted. Unfortunately, that capability has not yet been proven with 6.5 Grendel. I hope that some day it will be.

[LRRPF52]

Every time a new cartridge is introduced, it changes the original well thought out plan of the AR 15 rifle. Gene designed a fabulous 20" rifle that functioned perfectly with the m193 cartridge it was designed for. When the m855 was introduced, much thought and research was put into assuring the the chamber and gas port pressures remained the same as not to affect reliability. Then they decided to chop 6" off the barrel, and and 5.5" off the gas length for the M4. This changed everything. Bolts and extractors are now subjected to considerably more stress. The gas port and chamber pressures doubled, and the gas port had to be shrunk. To add a new cartridge to the mix would simply add to the reliability issues the M4 already faces during heavy sustained fire, not to mention logistics. It wouldn't surprise me if they did change calibers in their infinite wisdom, but it would only heap more problems on an already problematic weapons system. Just my .02.

The AR15 was not designed for the M193 5.56x45 (pre-NATO adoption designation of the 55gr FMJBT with cannelure high pressure .223 Remington). Gene Stoner and his team scaled up a rifle using the AR10's design, around the .222 Remington after Armalite was solicited to provide a Small Caliber High Velocity Rifle for the minority contingent of the CONARC/Infantry Board in 1957.

Spring: The Infantry Board extends the original 300 yard "ideal" to 400 yards in order to pacify certain CONARC members, and once again to 500 yards, to insure acceptance at the Pentagon. The finalized request calls for a 6 pound, select-fire .22 caliber rifle with a conventional stock and a 20 round magazine. The proposed chambering has to penetrate the issue steel helmet, body armor, and a .135" steel plate at 500 yards, while maintaining the trajectory and accuracy of M2 ball from a M1 rifle, and equaling or exceeding the "wounding" ability of the .30 Carbine.

http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html

Remembering General Wyman's favorable bent toward the AR-10 design, ArmaLite had also begun work on a scaled down version of the rifle. But this design, credited to John Peck, also uses the same small barrel extension as the AR-11. After the failure of the AR-11's barrel extension in testing, work is discontinued on Peck's design. Robert Fremont and L. James Sullivan are eventually tasked with starting from scratch in scaling down the AR-10 to .222 Remington.

The short barrel AR15's originated as part of Colt's attempt to introduce a family of weapons based on the AR15 in 1963, including:

* The Colt 605 Infantry Leader's Carbine (15" barrel, RLGS)
* The Colt 606 Heavy Barrel Squad Automatic Rifle
* The Colt 607 Commando
* The Colt 608 USAF Survival Carbine
* A belt-fed LMG AR15

This family of weapons was introduced as "CAR-15", and that name was eventually associated with some later Commando variants that weren't even part of the CAR-15 family you see here.


There was no chopping off 6" for the M4. The M4 is a descendant of the following lineage:

* Colt 607
* XM177E1
* XM177E2
* Colt Model 653 (the first 14.5" production carbine in the early 1970's for SEAL's and Ranger Regiment, as well as other SOF units)


* Colt Model 723
* Colt Model 727
* XM4
* M4A1

No chamber pressures are doubled, as that would be 124,000psi (5.56 MAPx2). An M4 chamber pressure is the same as an M16A2 chamber pressure. Locating the port closer to the chamber will result in a higher port pressure, which is mitigated with port sizing and buffer weight.

I had no issues with the M4 and M4A1 carbine while on active duty, and have conducted Close Quarters Marksmanship range sessions where 1,100 rounds of 5.56 M855 were run through my carbine in about 4 hours, all rounds in COM of B27 targets.

Of all the assault rifles I have used around the world, literally from Asia to South America to Europe to the Middle East, the M4 shines at the top of the list in terms of reliability. I can't think of many assault rifles that can undergo high volume shoot training like an M4 can.

[WildBill3/75]

Every time a new cartridge is introduced, it changes the original well thought out plan of the AR 15 rifle. Gene designed a fabulous 20" rifle that functioned perfectly with the m193 cartridge it was designed for. When the m855 was introduced, much thought and research was put into assuring the the chamber and gas port pressures remained the same as not to affect reliability. Then they decided to chop 6" off the barrel, and and 5.5" off the gas length for the M4. This changed everything. Bolts and extractors are now subjected to considerably more stress. The gas port and chamber pressures doubled, and the gas port had to be shrunk. To add a new cartridge to the mix would simply add to the reliability issues the M4 already faces during heavy sustained fire, not to mention logistics. It wouldn't surprise me if they did change calibers in their infinite wisdom, but it would only heap more problems on an already problematic weapons system. Just my .02.

How are we supposed to take this seriously.



When I was in the line, I was issued a Colt m4 that was issued to someone before me, and most likely someone before him. It ate m855 greentip with 0 problems and I put hundreds if not thousands of rounds down range with that rifle. While I was in I was also sent to a shooting course where the instructor there stated that he NEVER cleaned his m4, just kept it well lubed, and he never had any issues with thousands of rounds sent down range. In theatere I never had an issue with the m4 or the SR-25, even though they were COATED in dust from helo assault force/ground assault force infills to the objectives. Granted I wasn't an idiot and cleaned my rifles when I got back from the mission. I'm just stating the system flat out works and is tried and tested throughly.

Also if the m4 and its variants had severe issues why would the top tier's of our military as well as other nations military's trust their lives with variants of this weapon system?

The m16 has been in service since the late 60's....since then there have been a ton of small improvements made to the original design to come to where we are now. It's light weight, rugged, and thoroughly battle proven. In my own home today I own an m4 variant I pieced together and with that too I have never had any issues.

So where are these opinions coming from that the m4 is garbage? because that is basicly what you are saying with those inflammatory comments.

[BluntForceTrauma]

We've given Enigma some food for thought, hopefully he'll keep an open mind and give both sides of the story a fair hearing.

Beyond that, let's please keep this thread about Colt and LWRC.

John