imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Just Guns

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-06-2022, 09:51 AM
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The scorched state of California
Posts: 2,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkychinaman View Post
I don't doubt that, but if they didn't want bullpups, they should've specified, no bullpups. They're punishing LoneStar for something that wasn't specified.
The fact that LoneStar made it to the finals is generous enough, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-08-2022, 10:34 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198 View Post
The fact that LoneStar made it to the finals is generous enough, IMO.
Doesn't matter; protesting is the norm when a major manufacturer loses out on a major DoD contract. When Glock's 19X wasn't selected by the military, the fact that they still sold thousands of those guns to civilian customers - based entirely on the gun's rep as an MHS finalist - wasn't enough of a consolation prize for them not to protest. (Side note: The Glock 19X has also arguably proven to be a more influential handgun design than the P320, in more ways than one.)

In GD/LoneStar's case, even if/when they come out with a civilian version of the RM-277R, they won't even get the same consolation prize as Glock. The handgun market in the U.S. (and around the world) is much larger than the semi-auto rifle market, and handguns are also more affordable, so they're easier to market and sell to consumers. More than likely, the RM-277R will see limited production for civilian sales, won't sell at all, and will simply fade away.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.

Last edited by MT2008; 07-08-2022 at 10:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-11-2022, 05:57 PM
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The scorched state of California
Posts: 2,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
Doesn't matter; protesting is the norm when a major manufacturer loses out on a major DoD contract. When Glock's 19X wasn't selected by the military, the fact that they still sold thousands of those guns to civilian customers - based entirely on the gun's rep as an MHS finalist - wasn't enough of a consolation prize for them not to protest. (Side note: The Glock 19X has also arguably proven to be a more influential handgun design than the P320, in more ways than one.)
I think Glock already being one of the most popular handguns in the world played some part in it, too. As you probably know, some 70% of LEOs in the US use Glocks.

Quote:
In GD/LoneStar's case, even if/when they come out with a civilian version of the RM-277R, they won't even get the same consolation prize as Glock. The handgun market in the U.S. (and around the world) is much larger than the semi-auto rifle market, and handguns are also more affordable, so they're easier to market and sell to consumers. More than likely, the RM-277R will see limited production for civilian sales, won't sell at all, and will simply fade away.
It still falls back to the fact that bullpups haven't seen widespread acceptance in the US, military or otherwise. But we've seen manufacturers sink lots of money into potential military tenders only to get little to nothing back in the past (HK with the G11 being probably the most egregious example in the case of small arms) and it will probably happen again at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-11-2022, 11:14 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198 View Post
I think Glock already being one of the most popular handguns in the world played some part in it, too. As you probably know, some 70% of LEOs in the US use Glocks.
Oh, absolutely - but Glock has had its hits and misses over the years. The primary reason the 19X is still selling, and still in production, is due to its MHS rep. Otherwise, Glock should have phased it out by now to concentrate on production of the G45.

My point, though, is that the consolation prize of the 19X's popularity on the civilian market still doesn't mean Glock didn't feel obligated to protest its MHS loss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198 View Post
It still falls back to the fact that bullpups haven't seen widespread acceptance in the US, military or otherwise. But we've seen manufacturers sink lots of money into potential military tenders only to get little to nothing back in the past (HK with the G11 being probably the most egregious example in the case of small arms) and it will probably happen again at some point.
Yes, this is true also, though I should point out that there is still a market for bullpup designs in the U.S., which is why firearms manufacturers continue to bring them to market. But yes, American civilians and LE agencies are so addicted to AR-15-pattern rifles that bullpups will always be a curiosity and a novelty for collectors, rather than a serious contender for most folks' go-to rifles.

I also do think that in GD/LoneStar's case, they were always going to take a bigger loss than Glock took on the 19X (which really wasn't much of a loss) by virtue of the fact that the market for expensive military-style semi-auto rifles is far smaller than the market for handguns.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-20-2023, 05:23 PM
Ultimate94ninja Ultimate94ninja is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 31
Default

The MCX-SPEAR's designation has been recently changed to XM7.

The stated reason is that the M5 name is used for the Colt M5 Carbine. But then again, Colt also makes a 7.62x51 rifle known as M7/CM7.
__________________
"You say I'm dirty minded... but how did you understand what I meant?"
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-21-2023, 01:37 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimate94ninja View Post
The MCX-SPEAR's designation has been recently changed to XM7.

The stated reason is that the M5 name is used for the Colt M5 Carbine. But then again, Colt also makes a 7.62x51 rifle known as M7/CM7.
The real story here is that nobody at Army HQ/PEO Soldier even pays enough attention to Colt’s web site to know that they already made an M5 and an M7 (even though the Army is still issuing contracts to Colt for the M4s that are in service).

If I were an executive at Colt, I'd feel pretty insulted that the Army pays so little attention to my company. I'm sure that it feels like being a baby mama who still wants attention from her baby daddy, but has to live with the frustration of knowing that he'll never talk to her about anything again other than child support payments and custody sharing.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.

Last edited by MT2008; 01-23-2023 at 04:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-25-2023, 10:48 AM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
The real story here is that nobody at Army HQ/PEO Soldier even pays enough attention to Coltís web site to know that they already made an M5 and an M7 (even though the Army is still issuing contracts to Colt for the M4s that are in service).

If I were an executive at Colt, I'd feel pretty insulted that the Army pays so little attention to my company. I'm sure that it feels like being a baby mama who still wants attention from her baby daddy, but has to live with the frustration of knowing that he'll never talk to her about anything again other than child support payments and custody sharing.
Pretty sure the army would ignore what random civillian firearms someone has slapped an "M" designation on, they can just keep with their sequence and pretty sure there wouldn't actually be an issue on the army's end. I think where the issue would be is that if Colt has a trademark on "M5" Sig would not be able to market civillian versions of the gun that way. Similarly LWRC will have IP protection on the "M6", so "M7" is probably the first that doesn't have trademark issues. I assume the Colt "M7" is less of an issue as it is actually the "CM7".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.