Jump to content

5.56 VS 6.8


Snake@War
 Share

Recommended Posts

Someone has never heard of the $600 toilet seats the military bought obviously. The US military will spend tons of money for some of the damnedest things.

And there was a purpose behind some of those purchases that wasn't just about getting a seat. Sometimes such actions are just a criminal act. Sometimes it is to hide funding for other projects. And sometimes it is to persuade an entity to do something unrelated to the product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Someone has never heard of the $600 toilet seats the military bought obviously. The US military will spend tons of money for some of the damnedest things.

And there was a purpose behind some of those purchases that wasn't just about getting a seat. Sometimes such actions are just a criminal act. Sometimes it is to hide funding for other projects. And sometimes it is to persuade an entity to do something unrelated to the product.

And sometimes it actually makes sense, like the $100 ashtrays on submarines that cost so much because they're designed to break into non-sharp pieces when they break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone has never heard of the $600 toilet seats the military bought obviously. The US military will spend tons of money for some of the damnedest things.

And there was a purpose behind some of those purchases that wasn't just about getting a seat. Sometimes such actions are just a criminal act. Sometimes it is to hide funding for other projects. And sometimes it is to persuade an entity to do something unrelated to the product.

And sometimes it actually makes sense, like the $100 ashtrays on submarines that cost so much because they're designed to break into non-sharp pieces when they break.

One wonders, why not just use one of them unbreakable plastic ashtrays?

Out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

You should have been involved in the process and seen the testing involved. You are falling victim to the belief that the military's guns (or an weapon for that matter) are made by the cheapest bidder. This is in error and perpetuates the idea of an entirely incorrect purchasing process. Price is not the main factor in a military contract. Myself and two other persons just oversaw the bidding of a 7 figure contract. Guess what? It did not go to the cheapest bidder either. Price is a factor but is not the sole nor main deciding force in the contracting process. Careful, your assumption hat is showing. If you are going to insult someone, check your facts.

Boy, this is ironic, but you're assuming that I'm assuming. I'm not. I'm basing this off of actual fact.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg09-e.htm

"Both the SIG-Sauer P 226 and the eventual winner, the Beretta 92 passed each requirement during the trials, beating out offerings from Colt, Ruger, Heckler & Koch and Glock. The P 226 actually represented a lower cost per unit, but Beretta's cheaper accessory cost made the Beretta the winner in terms of overall cost."

So, um, I win.

True, price is not the only consideration in all military purchases, but for the M9, price played a big part (although a secondary part to actually passing the trials, of course, or else the Glock would probably have won).

So it is all about winning? It ought to be about the truth. Now your being naive. Very naive because

A) you believe what you read on some website, and

.

But yet, we should just believe everything that you have to say? Wouldn't that go against believeing something that we just read on a web-site? Because really, all you are is someone that is saying something on a web-site. And I have never known an operator to be as open about the workings of the proffesion as you are. Makes you kinda wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

You should have been involved in the process and seen the testing involved. You are falling victim to the belief that the military's guns (or an weapon for that matter) are made by the cheapest bidder. This is in error and perpetuates the idea of an entirely incorrect purchasing process. Price is not the main factor in a military contract. Myself and two other persons just oversaw the bidding of a 7 figure contract. Guess what? It did not go to the cheapest bidder either. Price is a factor but is not the sole nor main deciding force in the contracting process. Careful, your assumption hat is showing. If you are going to insult someone, check your facts.

Boy, this is ironic, but you're assuming that I'm assuming. I'm not. I'm basing this off of actual fact.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg09-e.htm

"Both the SIG-Sauer P 226 and the eventual winner, the Beretta 92 passed each requirement during the trials, beating out offerings from Colt, Ruger, Heckler & Koch and Glock. The P 226 actually represented a lower cost per unit, but Beretta's cheaper accessory cost made the Beretta the winner in terms of overall cost."

So, um, I win.

True, price is not the only consideration in all military purchases, but for the M9, price played a big part (although a secondary part to actually passing the trials, of course, or else the Glock would probably have won).

So it is all about winning? It ought to be about the truth. Now your being naive. Very naive because

A) you believe what you read on some website, and

.

But yet, we should just believe everything that you have to say? Wouldn't that go against believeing something that we just read on a web-site? Because really, all you are is someone that is saying something on a web-site. And I have never known an operator to be as open about the workings of the proffesion as you are. Makes you kinda wonder.

If you are questioning HF's credentials, let me assure you: He is who he says he is. And I don't know that from reading on a website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

You should have been involved in the process and seen the testing involved. You are falling victim to the belief that the military's guns (or an weapon for that matter) are made by the cheapest bidder. This is in error and perpetuates the idea of an entirely incorrect purchasing process. Price is not the main factor in a military contract. Myself and two other persons just oversaw the bidding of a 7 figure contract. Guess what? It did not go to the cheapest bidder either. Price is a factor but is not the sole nor main deciding force in the contracting process. Careful, your assumption hat is showing. If you are going to insult someone, check your facts.

Boy, this is ironic, but you're assuming that I'm assuming. I'm not. I'm basing this off of actual fact.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg09-e.htm

"Both the SIG-Sauer P 226 and the eventual winner, the Beretta 92 passed each requirement during the trials, beating out offerings from Colt, Ruger, Heckler & Koch and Glock. The P 226 actually represented a lower cost per unit, but Beretta's cheaper accessory cost made the Beretta the winner in terms of overall cost."

So, um, I win.

True, price is not the only consideration in all military purchases, but for the M9, price played a big part (although a secondary part to actually passing the trials, of course, or else the Glock would probably have won).

So it is all about winning? It ought to be about the truth. Now your being naive. Very naive because

A) you believe what you read on some website, and

.

But yet, we should just believe everything that you have to say? Wouldn't that go against believeing something that we just read on a web-site? Because really, all you are is someone that is saying something on a web-site. And I have never known an operator to be as open about the workings of the proffesion as you are. Makes you kinda wonder.

Sometime you get the Bear- Sometimes the bear gets you....Drop it mate. Contact the Moderators they have enough information to prove he's the real deal.

He's crenditials have been established a long time ago- if you further question this your likely to have an unpleasant visit from an Aussie sometime in your near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you COME BACK FOR A SECOND VISIT TO FT BRAGG GORDO, perhaps you should invite him. After all, since you will be conducting business HERE AT THE SPECIAL FORCES SCHOOL WHERE YOU HAVE ALREADY VISITED ONCE ALONG WITH PARABELLUM AS MY GUESTS, you know your way around and could give him a tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta be kidding me. Another person coming in here and before they even know what is going on they use their first post to attack Hatchet on the forum. Pretty sad.

When you join a forum you better spend some time to figure out who is who before you attempt to discredit them. Always safer to initially give a person their space and a little benefit of the doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you COME BACK FOR A SECOND VISIT TO FT BRAGG GORDO, perhaps you should invite him. After all, since you will be conducting business HERE AT THE SPECIAL FORCES SCHOOL WHERE YOU HAVE ALREADY VISITED ONCE ALONG WITH PARABELLUM AS MY GUESTS, you know your way around and could give him a tour.

The grand tour? Complete with Crash Avoidance 101.... :shifty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you COME BACK FOR A SECOND VISIT TO FT BRAGG GORDO, perhaps you should invite him. After all, since you will be conducting business HERE AT THE SPECIAL FORCES SCHOOL WHERE YOU HAVE ALREADY VISITED ONCE ALONG WITH PARABELLUM AS MY GUESTS, you know your way around and could give him a tour.

ROFL HF. I wasn't going to come out and say that, but now that you have... :)

Yes, Gordo_Viper and I spent several days with HF at Fort Bragg last year. At the Special Forces school. At the JFK Special Warfare Center. As an aside, it was one of the most amazing weeks I've ever lived. HF is quite the host, and spending several days with him learning about SF, going to the museums, getting the tour, was the highlight of my entire year.

@ Zantar: ZJJ cant' be HF. She's taller than he is. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

You should have been involved in the process and seen the testing involved. You are falling victim to the belief that the military's guns (or an weapon for that matter) are made by the cheapest bidder. This is in error and perpetuates the idea of an entirely incorrect purchasing process. Price is not the main factor in a military contract. Myself and two other persons just oversaw the bidding of a 7 figure contract. Guess what? It did not go to the cheapest bidder either. Price is a factor but is not the sole nor main deciding force in the contracting process. Careful, your assumption hat is showing. If you are going to insult someone, check your facts.

Boy, this is ironic, but you're assuming that I'm assuming. I'm not. I'm basing this off of actual fact.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg09-e.htm

"Both the SIG-Sauer P 226 and the eventual winner, the Beretta 92 passed each requirement during the trials, beating out offerings from Colt, Ruger, Heckler & Koch and Glock. The P 226 actually represented a lower cost per unit, but Beretta's cheaper accessory cost made the Beretta the winner in terms of overall cost."

So, um, I win.

True, price is not the only consideration in all military purchases, but for the M9, price played a big part (although a secondary part to actually passing the trials, of course, or else the Glock would probably have won).

So it is all about winning? It ought to be about the truth. Now your being naive. Very naive because

A) you believe what you read on some website, and

.

But yet, we should just believe everything that you have to say? Wouldn't that go against believeing something that we just read on a web-site? Because really, all you are is someone that is saying something on a web-site. And I have never known an operator to be as open about the workings of the proffesion as you are. Makes you kinda wonder.

If you are questioning HF's credentials, let me assure you: He is who he says he is. And I don't know that from reading on a website.

Ditto.

I can personally vouch that he is the real deal, and it has nothing to do with websites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...