Generally, when I see a “AK/AR” or 9mm vs .45″ post on a blog I have flashbacks to that episode of ‘Happy Days’ where Fonzie jumps his motorcycle over a pool with a shark in it. But, I like the looks of this infographic from Tacticalgear.com so I’ll share. There are a couple of questionable items in there like the 7 MOA AR but overall, I like it. If anything, it will stir some lively debate.
This latest run of Hive discreet carry packs is made in Three Color Desert (with burnt orange accents). The pack is water resistant and constructed with a combination o CORDURA and Tweave fabric offering a unique look that doesn’t scream “gun!”
The Hive was developed in conjunction with Chris Costa in order to satisfy the need for a convenient way to tote a larger handgun in the event you can’t concealed carry. When it was designed, the team also considered the use of a submachine gun. In fact, it will accommodate a folding stock UZI variants, MP7, MP5K, and B+T MP9 as well as other small SMGs.
Another main concern was easy access and the Hive offers simple, one handed retrieval. BFG added a bonus making it Dapper compatible by lining it with loop fabric so that it can be configured in a wide variety of ways. Additionally, it is ambidextrous with the shoulder strap and accessory pocket, which fits most common handguns as well as other items, can be switched from left to right. Finally, the main compartment incorporates a stiffened frame that helps protect the contents from printing as well as damage and the dual zippers can be opened one at a time or in tandem.
Remember, the Hive is manufactured in unique batches of 300 so if you want a specific color (or one from each run) you will need to get it while it is available and the price is low. Like all things Blue Force Gear, it’s made with pride in the USA.
The good folks at Weapon Outfitters made us aware of the Proctor Sling from Way of the Gun. Designed by Special Forces Veteran and IDPA USPSA Grand Master Frank Proctor, it is a two-point adjustable sling that is designed to be attached without any additional hardware. Lack of mounting hardware is of the things that I constantly run across. It never fails that someone will show up to a class I’m in without a sling / mounting hardware or I’ll have a chance to shoot a new weapon at a range and once again, no way to mount a sling. That alone makes this sling worth taking a look at.
It uses 550 cord on either end to attach to the weapon. At the rear you utilize a girth hitch through the QD mount or other slot on the stock. At the front it is slid down over the barrel to the hand guard and kept fast by cinching tight in a groove in the Picatinny rail.
Excess webbing on the adjustable end of the Proctor sling remains stored so there’s nothing loose to get in the way or be stepped on.
Available in Black, Coyote and MultiCam.
www.weaponoutfitters.com/proctor-slings
TAC-TV, hosted by Larry Vickers was recently at the world class Object indoor shooting club in Moscow where he live fired various Arsenal Firearms miniatures – 1/2 scale firearms included amongst others the 1911, M9, Desert Eagle and of course the AKM with functional suppressor and grenade launcher.
Strike Industries’ AK TRAX is a modular drop-in rail for AK pattern rifles. Made from anodized aluminum, the AK TRAX won’t add much weight to the rifle, and its design allows for multiple configurations to suit the user’s needs. The system starts with the TRAX1 base lower rail, which is designed to allow attachment of the TRAX1 upper rail, and the TRAX2 upper and lower rails. The TRAX also features the keymod system, which allows for additional side rails as needed. Available in Black, FDE, and Urban Grey.
strikeindustries.com/shop/index.php/
This publicity photo popped up last night on Colt’s Facebook page and has started an uproar. That’s Texas Governor Rick Perry shooting a rifle at the Colt factory that has an AK mag sticking out of it and by the looks of it, a US Palm mag. And, it looks like it is going into a magwell (yes, a magwell). And, that looks like a monolithic upper maybe? Maybe were looking at a piston AR-AK hybrid? And, maybe it was purpose built for a foreign client? Ok, there no “maybe” on that last part (as in, “you can count on it.”) And yes, I know, it’s not really an AK, more of an AR in 7.62×39. I hear Gov Perry took one of these handful of prototypes home.
I don’t care if Colt banged your sister and left town when she came up pregnant, this is an interesting development. Sometimes you have to spell things out for people, otherwise they’ll wax all poetic about stuff they don’t understand. Magwells and AK magazines do not play well together. That is one of many reasons why this is remarkable.
We’ll update this post live with info as the Army releases it.
BG Ostrowski, PEO Soldier introduced the panel:
CSM Maunakea, Mr Fred Copolla PM Soldier Weapons, COL Paul Hill PM Ammo, COL Dan Burnette Maneuver Center Of Excellence and CSM Braxton from MCOE.
BG Ostrowski offered a brief history of the Individual Carbine requirement. Based on the draft solicitation released in Feb 2011 they fielded and answered over 320 questions. The final solicitation closed in October 2011. 8 competitors: Adcor, Beretta, Colt, FN, H&K, LMT, Remington and Troy bid on the program.
The goal of the program was a cost benefit analysis pitting those candidate weapons against the baseline M4 performance. In particular they looked at accuracy, reliability, life-cycle cost, and Soldier acceptance.
Phase I- Nov 2011
Administrative in nature. Spring 2012 all passed on to phase II.
Phase II – Spring 2012
Actual performance phase.
Accuracy – Candidate weapons must have offered accuracy of 5″ or less at 300m
Durability
Reliability – BG Ostrowski noted that the weapon as a system consists of the weapon itself, the magazine and the ammunition. Each of the vendors had different issues. As an aside, the IC program established a Mean Rounds Between Stoppages at 3592 rounds as a requirement. Conversely, when the M4 was fielded in 1990 it was required to offer 600 Mean Rounds Between Stoppages. To this day, the M4 continues to be tested against its baseline performance established in 1990 despite the Army’s new requirement for the IC, although the 3592 number was established during the Army’s performance qualification testing of the M855A1 round. The M4 itself exhibited 1691 class I and II MRBS during the M855A1 testing. The difference between the M4’s and IC parameters is one of the indications of that significant increase in performance that the Army is seeking.
During Phase II, 3 weapons per vendor each expended 21600 rounds in temperate testing. Next, they would have expended 36000 rounds in Phase III.
Phase III would have been a Limited User Test and IOT&E.
BG Ostrowski was surprised that it turned out this way but during Phase II, none met requirements to pass to Phase III. Primarily, reliability was the issue at hand.
The Army is NOT cancelling IC competition. It has to conclude the program as none met the minimum requirements to continue in the program. This was not test-fix-test venue but rather binary in nature as in pass/fail. Consequently, the Army’s hands are tied and BG Ostrowski noted that the Army would have moved forward if it would have been possible.
He went on to explain that the Army has not made a decision regarding steps ahead. MCOE is interested in increased lethality, range and accuracy however, there is no immediate plan to recompete this requirement.
The Army still wants a leap ahead technology.
The Army has made 92 improvements to the M4 since its initial fielding in 1990. The second path of the dual path strategy is still in full swing with conversion of the fleet of M4s to M4A1s. This includes a heavier barrel and full auto capability. BG Ostrowski wants to keep the “industrial base warm” and the Army has just issued an IDIQ contract to FN for additional M4s.
BG Ostrowski was very adamant that the M855A1 receives high Soldier acceptance despite the information in yesterday’s press release that indicated that the ammunition might be a mitigating factor in the failures. There is some question as to whether or not the press release was correct on this matter and unfortunately, this answer was not established.
Mr Fred Copolla noted that although it was an option in the requirement, none of the offerors introduced alternative calibers or ammunition to the competition.
I was alerted just an hour ago by multiple industry sources that the US Army Individual Carbine competition had concluded since none of the contenders made it past Phase II.
We understand that the Army plans to release a statement shortly. In that statement we expect that Army to verify this story and explain that none of the contenders offered a significant improvement over the currently issued M4 carbine.
This twist makes pending legislation in the House of Representatives version of the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the Army to complete the IC competition moot. Additionally, it allows the Army to reprogram funds set aside for the IC for other use.
The cancellation also falls in line with a prediction we made in March following testimony by Ms. Lynne M. Halbrooks, Principal Deputy Inspector General, Department of Defense Inspector General before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the program would be cancelled.
Below is the Army’s press release.
FT. BELVOIR (13 June 2013) Following extensive testing of vendor-submitted carbines, the Army announced today that the Individual Carbine (IC) competition will formally conclude without the selection of a winner. None of the carbines evaluated during the testing phase of the competition met the minimum scoring requirement needed to continue to the next phase of the evaluation.
In lieu of a new competition for an IC, the Army will continue fielding and equipping Soldiers with the M4A1 carbine, which consistently performs well and has received high marks from Soldiers. Given limited fiscal resources, the Army’s decision would free IC funding to address other high priority Army needs. This decision is also consistent with recent testimony by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which questioned the value of an IC competition in light of existing upgrades to the M4 carbine.
The IC program consisted of a three-phased competitive strategy to determine whether industry could provide a best-value, improved alternative to the M4A1 carbine. Phase I consisted of reviews of vendor proposals and non-firing evaluations of bid samples. All vendors successfully met Phase I criteria. In 2012, the Army commenced Phase II of the competition, which subjected IC candidates to rigorous evaluations that tested the extreme limits of weapon performance in such areas as weapon system accuracy, reliability, and durability. For Phase III, the Army planned to award between zero and three contracts for weapons meeting Phase II requirements for further environmental and operationally oriented Soldier testing. Upon completion of all testing, the Army planned to conduct a cost benefit analysis between the top performing competitor and the M4A1 carbine.
At the conclusion of Phase II testing, however, no competitor demonstrated a significant improvement in weapon reliability — measured by mean rounds fired between weapon stoppage. Consistent with the program’s search for superior capability, the test for weapon reliability was exceptionally rigorous and exceeded performance experienced in a typical operational environment.
Based upon Army analysis, test results may have been affected by interaction between the ammunition, the magazine and the weapon. The Army’s existing carbine requirement assumed use of the M855 ammunition; the weapons tested in the IC competition all fired the next generation M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) currently in fielding. The use of the M855A1 round likely resulted in lower than expected reliability performance. These effects are unique to testing conditions and are not known to affect the reliability of any weapon in the operational environment.
The Army’s decision not to pursue a new carbine competition was reached following careful consideration of the Army’s operational requirements in the context of the available small arms technology, the constrained fiscal environment, and the capability of our current carbines. The Army remains committed to the development of future competitive opportunities that support Army small arms modernization.
