Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
Did you know that the Army serious looked at, and tested plastic for the charging handles? They found they were strong enough (no failures in field tests at Ft Benning), but the 1960s plastic got brittle at low temperatures. 6061 has a lot higher yield strength than plastic.
I have seen and handled some 6-7th generation plastic lowers of a specific type that use steel in key places to deal with the high stress areas that are surprisingly durable. We know outside of a couple of areas the lower is not a highly stressed part, but it's still surprising how well they are holding up.

- An officer without communication is in a far worse place than an officer with a broken rifle.
This is an area that I am expert regarding qualitative and operational differences. Simply put, a mil mfg decided to move into the pub service communications space. I actually like the company, they make good mil equipment. But they are 2-3X the cost of the incumbent (Motorola) for the same functionality pub service radios, and if anything have an unproven track record for that market segment. They sold, and agencies bought, a gold plated" standard which was used to make it a sole source procurement. To be very clear, Moto (warts and all) is not at a reliability / operational disadvantage in this space.

If anything, this is like your 7075 mag button issue. Over specification/gold plated specs.

But the core point: LEO locally is spending 10-20X what were are talking about for carbines, and that's just the officer part. They are spending like drunken sailors.


- There is a huge difference between "as good as" and "good enough".
I'm very clear on the difference. And you have been making "it's good enough, it won't hardly be used" argument all along.

To me, that's a slippery slope. I have a son and son-in-law in combat arms positions in the Army. One Infantry, one Artillery in an IN unit. One currently deployed in a hot area. I want them to have the best equipment where it matters. At the same time I recognize they are subject to "lowest bidder" gov procurement stuff.

I never bought into the "all you need is a 6920 and a G19, anything else and you are a gun fud" fad when it was the rage on M4C. I think there is room for multiple mfg's.

That said, my observation is that there are some sweet spots (quality+functionality/$) that are truisms. Colt vintage 6920 OEMs being a prime example. And I would not have put most SW & FN commercial offerings in that bucket. Do I (personally) need 4150CMV/7075, etc? Clearly not. Especially not if it was double the cost. But if I can get it for close to the same cost, yeah I'll take it.

From current reports, it's not clear to me if Colt is still making things the same. So the old adage may be out of date anyway. IG is long gone (RIP), the chart is dead, and Colt is not the same. Even DD & FN uses 6061 RE's, etc. So you raise some fair points on the alloy stuff even if it would not be my pick. Good enough may well be good enough!