TheGloriousTachikoma
Member
@ Owen
Colt making the 240...
Maybe a semi-auto version for civvies...cheaper than OOW's offering?
Colt making the 240...
Maybe a semi-auto version for civvies...cheaper than OOW's offering?
And the US Army's M4A1 Carbine contract goes to...
- Thread starter Quiet
- Start date
- Status
Oily Pablo...FN can not sell an AR to the public at this moment. I can't see getting this contract changing that....From what I have read it has to do with being given the TDP owned by Colt from the government and they are not allowed to compete with Colt in the civilian market.
calaverasslim
Member
If I'm not mistaken, I carried the Colt M16 for the 2 years I was in Nam. So long ago, I can't remember. Heck, at my age, I can't remember yesterday, much less 45 years ago.
The Colt SAA, as I understand it, is not a production gu. However, maybe so they will start as well as the DA revolvers.
That wud be nice
The Colt SAA, as I understand it, is not a production gu. However, maybe so they will start as well as the DA revolvers.
That wud be nice
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
@theglorious
Then maybe the Ohio ordnance prices would drop? Sigh...
Then maybe the Ohio ordnance prices would drop? Sigh...
Sam Cade
Member
Turnabout is fair play.
FN contested Colt getting the M240 contract....and lost.
As a final matter, FN challenges the SSA’s best value tradeoff decision. In this regard, FN argues that the SSA’s decision to select Colt’s lower-priced proposal was unreasonable LOL
It is well-settled that an agency properly may select a lower-rated, lower-priced proposal, even where price is a less important evaluation factor than technical merit, where it reasonably concludes that the price premium involved in selecting the higher-rated proposal is not justified in light of the acceptable level of technical competence available at a lower price. The extent of such tradeoffs is governed only by the test of rationality and consistency with the evaluation criteria. Thus, a protester’s disagreement with the agency’s determinations as to the relative merits of competing proposals, or disagreement with its judgment as to which proposal offers the best value to the agency, do not establish that the evaluation or source selection was unreasonable. General Dynamics–Ordnance & Tactical Sys., B-401658, B‑401658.2, Oct. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD para. 217 at 8.
Ehtereon11B
internet infantryman
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 983
Yup. Never used a Colt AR in close to a decade of being in the military. I have used M16A4s and M16A2s but don't recall those being Colt either. But every M4 has been FN with one or two being Bushmaster.
Sam Cade
Member
Marked like this?
If so, they were rebuilt from rifles and had Colt uppers most likely.
Detritus
Member
Colt WISHES that were true.
Several years ago Colt filed suit over a relatively small run of M-4s that Bushmaster made at DoD behest claiming that they (colt) had exclusive right to the M4 spec. They lost.
Colt was told outright that the specified period in which they enjoyed exclusive rights to produce "M-4" Spec. weapons for DOD/Gov had expired and that if DoD or similar federal level Org wanted to shop smaller contracts out to AR makers other than Colt they would.
the vast and overwhelming majority of M-4 pattern carbines in federal/DoD service are colt, because they received the original and largest continuing contacts. But there have been a few more smaller run contracts let to other companies since that BM contract.
Colt does still own the rights to "M-4" as a trademark/etc on the civvy/LE market. but that means less than zero as far as current and future government production.
Last edited:
Quentin
Member
That's very hard to believe. The vast majority of M4s are Colt, not FN. If Bushamster slipped in a few M4geries here and there I have to hope they weren't issued to soldiers/marines, maybe just gov't agencies like the RRAs the DEA got.
HorseSoldier
Member
The various M4s and M4A1s I've been issued post-9/11 have all been Colts, but I can certainly buy into the concept of there being some FN rebuilds out there as well. Back in early 90s my issue M16A2 was a remanufactured -A1, with "Auto" ground off and "Burst" engraved in its place. (Also had an M203 issued a few years ago where the AAI-built tube may have been in Vietnam at the same time my dad did his second tour . . .)
I don't think any of the Bushmaster, RRA, or other smaller contracts were ever in .mil service, just farmed out to various other federal agencies and such, except for Sabre Defense which had an actual military contract before they went out of business.
I don't think any of the Bushmaster, RRA, or other smaller contracts were ever in .mil service, just farmed out to various other federal agencies and such, except for Sabre Defense which had an actual military contract before they went out of business.
CapnMac
Member
Hmm, sidereal to the contract award, South Carolina at least allows possession and manufacture of AR and magazines--a situation which may not much hold for Remington in NYS much longer.
HorseSoldier
Member
FNH seems more pro-2A and pro citizens and guns in combination than Colt does to me. Those guys became poster boys boy the whole military industrial complex concept a long time ago.
Personally, I would rather see the contract (and any associated tax revenues) go to workers in a right-to-work and 2nd Amendment-friendly state like South Carolina than to the corrupt union bosses and politicians in in a union-controlled and anti-2nd Amendment state like New York or Connecticut.
And, as earlier mentioned, FN has nothing close to a monopoly on US military weapons (or even small arms). The fact that FN Manufacturing is owned by a foreign entity is a moot point. There is a reason these companies are required to set up US-manufacturing facilities to acquire government contracts - to guarantee that there will be no interruptions in production during times of war.
Last edited:
Bushmaster never made an M4 on a DOD contract. Colt filed suit over the M4 contract being given to FN and won. The court ruled that Colt had made enough changes in the development of the M4 from the original M16 Technical Data Package that the M4 was a completely new design and awarded Colt exclusive rights to the M4 TDP until 2012. After that the TDP became property of the government.
There were kits procured at one point to convert existing M16 pattern rifles to M4 configuration which explains FN "M4s".
A search of this forum should bring up the original threads on this with links to the actual court rulings.
All I can say on this is that I definitely saw Bushmaster M4's when I was in. I was there when they came out of the packaging and I remember that we had to pull the carry handles off and move them forward an inch or so to fit in the racks in the arms room. I noticed hat they were Bushmasters because I knew that bushmaster made AR's but not that they actually supplied to the military.
This was in Ledward Barracks, Schweinfurt Germany, early 2000.
I have been on this forum for years, don't know anything about court rulings, and have positively no reason to make this up.
This was in Ledward Barracks, Schweinfurt Germany, early 2000.
I have been on this forum for years, don't know anything about court rulings, and have positively no reason to make this up.
Goon,
You might want to read this articles about the court battle:
http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_article.aspx?ArticleKey=198
In 1999 the court rules for COlt and an agreement with the Army gave Colt sole source production of the M4 and M4A1 until 2008 or 2009 IIRC. After that the Army could give the TDP to other companies and buy M4s and M4A1s from them, but the other companies would have to pay Colt a royalty for every carbine they produced up until 2012 IIRC.
The agreement with the Army is online somewhere and when I get more time I will find it.
You might want to read this articles about the court battle:
http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_article.aspx?ArticleKey=198
In 1999 the court rules for COlt and an agreement with the Army gave Colt sole source production of the M4 and M4A1 until 2008 or 2009 IIRC. After that the Army could give the TDP to other companies and buy M4s and M4A1s from them, but the other companies would have to pay Colt a royalty for every carbine they produced up until 2012 IIRC.
The agreement with the Army is online somewhere and when I get more time I will find it.
Sam Cade
Member
In the meantime pg 255 has M4 procurement prior to the 1999 calender year
www.fas.org/man/docs/fy99/army/wtcv.pdf
- Status
