Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner
21 - 40 of 49 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,617 Posts
Yea the IMI design is very old indeed... however the layout isnt that old. The MP7 uses a similar layout, though chambered for a different cartridge so it didnt go anywhere.

A modern version with updated design internals, just move mag to grip area could yield a smaller weapon, keeping a 5 to 6 inch barrel.. although it might end up being a little rear-heavy, it could shorten the length of telescoping stock to maintain the compactness of it.

Edit: oh well. No one entered anything like that, and the Army chose B&T's design... we shall see if it actually follows through with this contract or if it gets canceled after 350 :rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,358 Posts
Ah, I researched it a bit and apparently the stock bar has a relief bevel on the inside top edge right there to permit ejection with the stock collapsed. I'll look for a picture.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Looks really cool but I still like a shotgun for social work. Nothing says: "Lay down and take a nap....you look tired" like a 12 Gauge.

I'm Old School
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,529 Posts
It's a very old design. Very hard to control and VERY fast cyclic rate.

And no one entered it in the contract trials.

"The APC9 K has an 4.3 inch barrel, an overall length of 13.6 inches and a collapsing stock. It weighs just over 2.6kg, has full ambidextrous controls, a full length top rail and a non-reciprocating charging handle."
It also uses a hydraulic buffer to keep it controllable in automatic use.

STILL,
$7k per weapon is wa-a-a-y too much!
Even if it came in a Gold lined box!!!

eldar
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,617 Posts
STILL,
$7k per weapon is wa-a-a-y too much!
Even if it came in a Gold lined box!!!

eldar
How much does it cost to train people how to diagnose, repair, replace parts, ensure functionality of a new design? How much does it cost to hire qualified instructors to train the armorers that will receive the first 350? Also... how much production time is gonna be spent to make the spare parts to go to the armorers, and how long are those parts expected to last and be available?

Granted maybe its not $7k per gun worth...
Best I can tell? Maybe a months worth of training at the most for 35 to 70 armorers to troubleshoot, to make repairs, to diagnose problems with design, and apply solutions thats "soldier proof? And this is for the first 350. May actually be far cheaper if they make contracts for 10,000+ with attendant support items like spare parts by the bin and providing the first group of armorers with training syllabuses to teach other armorers?

Edit. Its not just the guns that the contract is for. Two key terms.. "Support and training"
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,529 Posts
How complicated is the weapon?

Too complicated and the weapon will defeat itself.

This smells more like the time the US Navy bought DEC 3000 desktop computers only to find they were scammed into buy obsolete equipment.

eldar
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,617 Posts
Yea; how many times has the Pentagon tried to replace the M16/M4 family of weapons and then canceled the contracts...? This program on the other hand.... is because the Pentagon finally realized that giving everyone a M4 or M9 pistols was just not gonna cut it anymore; even though nearly 20 years of warfare has abudantly shown the need for two additional class of weapons, one being a more powerful rifle round (or just go back to 7.62x51 NATO... it seemed to work good for many of the NATO countries :rolleyes: ) and a submachine gun firing a round thats more efficient at lower speeds than the 5.56 out of 11 inch barrels... .

Kinda wish the Pentagon would have told Army and Air Force to go with the patterns fielded by the USMC and told them to suck it up instead of spending billions on unique patterns because "branding".

We'll see how this program fare though. I have doubts it'll go beyond the 350 examples, if that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,833 Posts
Actually....they DIDN’T give everyone an M9. And the regular military doesn’t actually need a 9 mm PDW. Nor do they need every swinging Richard carrying a .308, or even a 6.8.

But they ARE planning to issue more M17’s to more troops than ever. And possibly making the squad level LMG a bit more potent. So there’s that.

And then...the Marines are using a 16” barrel on their M27, which runs $2000 per unit, and NO ONE is issuing subguns...what 11” gun are we talking about here that would save money?

But....

This gun is NOT for general issue. It’s not for rifle squad use, it’s not for door kickers, it’s not for Spec-Ops, nor clearing trenches, and it’s not for battles.

It’s for close protection security details. So all of our Monday morning quarter backing BS about this or that might be better, when you don’t even seem to know what the game is.....is kinda silly.

And then.....well, I’m just gonna say it.

I really can’t believe you guys thought you had found a problem based on a picture.:cool:

Do you REALLY think the testing would have missed the fact that the stock blocks the ejection port when closed, if it actually had?

Do you REALLY think no one tried shooting the thing as a pistol?

Or do you assume they did, and it jammed up, but they were so excited by the new toy, that they simply ignored that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Think1st

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,617 Posts
Apparently the USMC Force Recon, SEALS and some Special Operation Groups have the 11.5" barreled M4 Commandos in use with some members in place of the M9 pistol.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,833 Posts
This program on the other hand.... is because the Pentagon finally realized that giving everyone a M4 or M9 pistols was just not gonna cut it anymore....and a submachine gun firing a round that's more efficient at lower speeds than the 5.56 out of 11 inch barrels... .

Kinda wish the Pentagon would have told Army and Air Force to go with the patterns fielded by the USMC and told them to suck it up instead of spending billions on unique patterns because "branding".
One of the Colt Commando models, XM733 I think?
So...is the thing about the USMC in regards to that Colt? Because that was an Army thing, the XM177, based on the Air Force CAR 15 which became the GAU-5 something or other...o_O

It had a 10" barrel with a 4" "modulator" that was required to make it run reliably, and also reduced flash and sound, then an 11.5 inch barrel.

And reduced range, which was great for jungle use, or kicking doors, but not the extended ranges.

Or did you mean a different Marine weapon?

But since they generally don't use those guns or barrels anymore, nor do they issue a sub machine gun...who cares WHAT an 11" barrel does? And why do you want a slower bullet?

It's not "branding".... it's missions...the Marines don't always do the same things the Army does, and they don't always do the same things the same way; so they may not be happy with the same guns. In fact...they obviously aren't or they wouldn't be looking at other ideas.

The last time the politicians tried to standardize across services, we got people killed because the bean counters got involved; what worked for a small purchase for the Air Force was too expensive for general issue, but they tried to make it happen anyway by cutting corners.

So really, all you guys that want to cut corners here? Ask those Marines and soldiers that got that first batch of M16's how they feel about it. They might have an informed opinion about that kind of thing.
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Top