I tend to agree, it's cost that prohibits. Remember, it's always the lowest bidder that wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Printable View
I tend to agree, it's cost that prohibits. Remember, it's always the lowest bidder that wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
True Jim, let's not let common sense get anywhere near procurement!
I'd have loved to see a miniature version of the MAG58(C6) done in 5.56 instead of the loose assembly of parts that ended up being the C9(Minimi). They were loose when new and the C6 is tight when old...well, not too bad at any rate.
Remember John its the bean counters that run the show these days........... obvious had a few days off when someone agreed to the foxhound........ what a heap of ****
Isn't it partly due to a saving in weight because a forged/milled receiver is likely to be heavier than a sheet steel/formed version as well cheaper production costs?Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
I would love to say that it's the designer thinking of the soldier and the weight of his kit but in reality it's not.
They certainly failed on the weight saving front with the L85 F10!Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Aluminium has a proven track record (look at the Armalite), modern materials and construction techniques avalable today, allow for weight saving, great strength and durability accross a whole range of calibres.
Nope. Stampings are fast and cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brit plumber
Evening Geoff, wasn't the Foxhound one of the vehicles procured under UOR's I would imagine a lot of Afghanistan UOR kit will be sold off over the next few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
Our vehicle depots and TMP parks are full of the UOR vehicles that can't be used on the roads here.