Colt won!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I personally see absolutely no reason for the military to spend that much on a handgun.
 
$1900 per pistol? I cry uncle, Sam
That's not a true per-unit price, since MARCORSYSCOM (as is customary) doubtless requested spares and other deliverables along with each pistol.

Right--the contract amount is for "Efforts required to produce and provide logistics support for the Close Quarter Battle Pistol (CQBP)."

The CQBP is not a commercial product. It is a special design that will be produced in low quantity.

It is not possible to determine from the information now available how much the Government will pay for the pistols themselves.

The contract was priced competitively. Colt was selected over two other bidders.
 
Hope they come with enough spare parts to rebuild a couple of times. I got a cons# pair for less at a retail shop. No surprise for government spending.

ts
 
I'm actually glad to hear that Colt won this contract.

I'm scratching my head as to why this design is still desired by the US Military.
 
Posted by scramasax: Hope they come with enough spare parts to rebuild a couple of times.
They may. We don't know.

I got a cons# pair for less at a retail shop.
Pair of what?

I'm sure they were not low production pistols with a special finish and recoil mechanism that had passed extensive military endurance testing.
 
...that is why we have a $15.8 trillion national debt....

this is a disgrace..... I hope this contract is cancelled in January 2013 when the massive national defense cuts go into effect...

Congress is nuts....!
 
If even one American life is saved because of this pistol, $1,900.00 isn't nothing.

A $1,900 gun won't save a life any better than a $400 Ruger would have done.

What a waste of taxpayer money!!!
 
Not just amazing that this is the second thread this week on the subject but that we have members who believe military spending is what's bankrupted our country. As you walk around today, ask yourself which 1 in every 6 people you pass by is receiving one or more forms of government "aid". Not constitutional, unlike defense spending. As far as small arms go, I wonder how many bat an eye at Knights Armament charging $23,000 per rifle package to arm one man. Colt's Rail Gun, the basis for this model retails around $1,100. Considering the $150-$250 upcharge companies place on ceramic coatings, the additional magazines, spare pistols and spare parts, I see this as a bargain. Consider the cost of switching platforms, training armorers and re-training troops before crying foul.

To those who believe the 1911 needs pampering to work at all, how did those used in WWII survive that war, Korea, Vietnam and another decade beyond before a successor was chosen, mainly to satisfy NATO?

I'm sure someone will soon post links to the story and fake photos of these new Colts with cracked frames and failed parts.
 
Posted by rajb123: ...that is why we have a $15.8 trillion national debt....

this is a disgrace..... I hope this contract is cancelled in January 2013 when the massive national defense cuts go into effect...
You cannot begin to know the per-unit price, since the competitively awarded contract price includes a logistics support line item.

One therefore must conclude that your complaint is about the fact that the Marines are buying a small quantity of a non-standard firearm rather than M9 Berettas.
 
....wasted money is wasted money. what is wrong with the old 1911s? I'm writting my Congressman and I will ask him to cancel the Colt contract which I find insulting as a taxpayer.
 
Life of a soldier is not dependant on spending more money on a pistol. If spending money alone would save lives then entire prespective would be different.

In military cost benefit analysis must be made, and I dont see what a $1900 1911 could do special.
 
Congrats to Colt, but I am another one that can not understand what a $600 S&W M&P .45 can not do in a soldier's hands that this gun can. OR a Ruger, or one of several other great guns.

Would you be as happy if your local police department contracted for these guns at this price per unit?
 
Posted by rajb123: ....wasted money is wasted money.
True, but what is your beef?

what is wrong with the old 1911s?
They were worn out back in the 1980s. The last ones were manufactured in WWII. The Kimbers that the Marine SOC have been using are worn out.

I'm writting my Congressman and I will ask him to cancel the Colt contract which I find insulting as a taxpayer.
OK, but he cannot do that without a majority in both houses and the President's signature, and if you want to start making a stink, you had first better try to figure out just what it is about the contract that you do not like.

Does the total price seem too high to you, knowing what you know, even though it was competitively awarded? Is there something about the logistics support line item that you dislike? Do you not like the specification?

If it is the specification, what is that you do not like? The caliber? The endurance requirement? The finish? the Rail? The fact that the pistol must accept 1911 magazines?

And might I respectfully respect two things: none of us know why it is what it is, and none of us are charged with putting our lives on the line for our country.

Personally, I find it odd that one of the requirements was that the CQBP accept 1911 magazines, but I do not have sufficient knowledge to criticize that fact.
 
Posted by clang: ... I am another one that can not understand what a $600 S&W M&P .45 can not do in a soldier's hands that this gun can. OR a Ruger, or one of several other great guns.

How much would your "$600 S&W M&P .45" cost with the logistics support added in?

Considering maintenance and endurance, would either the S&W or the Ruger involve a lower total ownership cost than the Colt, or a higher one?

Will either meet SOC combat requirements?

Would you be as happy if your local police department contracted for these guns at this price per unit?
What is the price per unit of the hardware line item?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top