Re: Larue predatar 7.62 vs others
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, your original point was that a Savage 110 BA would do everything the XM2010 would do and more at a fraction of the cost.
Who said the Remington is the most accurate rifle available? There are more important things to consider than simply accuracy.
Nobody said a person should base their purchase solely off what our military does. You'd be hard-pressed to find somebody that would argue the M24s are superior to AI AWs, TRG-22s, etc.
Again, have you handled a Remington produced M4? You're constantly speaking only on speculations. You don't even know that you don't know.
ETA:
Clicked your little link:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The rifles will be made at Remington’s factory in Ilion, N.Y., from the Colt technical data package and will cost about $673.10 a copy. That’s a significantly lower price than the final order of Colt produced M4A1s the government paid $1221 for in a 2010 contract.</div></div>
What do you know? I was right without trying. The Remington M4s aren't produced by Bushmaster/DPMS and WILL follow the Colt TDP
So do you want to make the case Bushmasters and DPMS or Rock River even, are superior quality to Colt? If so, why would Remington follow the Colt TDP?
The article also alludes to one possible reason is that Colt was awarded another contract and is already at full production capacity. Back to one of my original point, the contractor must have the logistics---something that it is likely Savage does not have.
Go back to rule number 1. When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.
OP: sorry, I shouldn't have let the ramblings of this dude force me to drive your thread so far off topic. I wholeheartedly apologize. I couldn't resist. </div></div>
Noooooooooooooo, I was making a point that using the savage as an example and i said multiple times after i'm not saying one rifle is better than the other. My 2 original post:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: InkedIan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: InkedIan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a reason Remington and DPMS didn't get the SASS contract... Reliability and repeatable accuracy were failings for both. </div></div>
More like they probably weren't the lowest bidder and the CEO didn't suck officer dick... The military's accuracy standards for small arms of any type aren't really high... Wait, Remington did get the Army's sniper rifle contract sooooo I guess they bob on that nob. </div></div>
Really? Weren't the lowest bidder? Do you know anything of how the competition went? They didn't even make it to bidding. They were bounced out because they didn't meet required accuracy and durability standards as outlined in the product request.
Not to mention... you seriously think DPMS and Remington actually would have had a more expensive product than KAC? What are you smoking???? I'm not even a very big fan of KAC... but you'd seriously have to have your head inserted into your 5th point of contact to think their price was the lowest... or that DPMS or Remington could out perform them on a platform that is their bread and butter... in production longer than the current Armalite has been producing the AR-10 (which, by the way... they used a KAC SR-25 for testing and design when working on the current AR-10). KAC made the AR-10 platform what it is today... and they are the only manufacture with a sizeable and long standing history of military service- which no doubt helped to refine their design.
Remington took the contract for the XM2010 because no one other than, I believe Crane had anything to offer that would meet the Army's needs and come in at a reasonable price point. By allowing Remington to buy back all of the parts pulled from the receiver, that pushed the total program costs even lower- it is almost a certainty that Crane would not have done this.
Oh and what do you call a "high" accuracy standard... The CSASS request shows a requirement of 3/4moa... Pretty respectable on a semi-auto. I agree that a requirement of a "minimum 1moa" is a little loose for the M2010- but then again, the M24 had the same requirement and consistently produced 3/4 moa with 118LR. </div></div>
Sorry! I hate getting off subject but I would like to retort.
Chill, I was partly joking. The lowest bidder nooooo probably not, but sucking D and payoffs to get the contract I guarantee thats true. The Marines Corps paid 8.3 million for 803 M110 rifles... Really $10,336 per rifle??? Because it's the best all around semi-auto 308 AR available??? Nooooooo.... Same with Remingtons xm2010, 28 million for 2,500 rifles AND they chose the 300 win mag over the 338 Lapua! WTF... $11,200 dollars for a rifle that a $1800 Savage 110BA in 338l could more than likely out perform.... Using military contracts as a test of quality is usually a joke with some exceptions... That's why I laugh when people use mil-spec to reference toughness. I know the shit I was issued and tested wasn't the latest or greatest.</div></div>
