colt m4 help

[Chainsaw78]

hello -

have a few questions that i was hoping some of you might be able to help me out with. i'm doing a little research on colt defense, llc and trying to get an idea of the competitive landscape and challenges that the company might face going forward. a few questions follow..

1. colt's exclusivity contract on the US military m4 orders expired in june of this year, so competitors can now bid on US gov't m4 contracts. what's the word on how likely it is that someone like FN actually tries to bid? i'm told there is a large 500,000 rifle contract that the gov't is in the process of awarding.

2. how realistic is it that the military could switch away from colt's m4 and to an FN scar or an H&K 416? colt argues that its m4 is "combat proven" and that that means more than anything else to potential customers, especially the US military. additionally, colt also argues that the costs of replacing the installed base of m4s can only be justified with a revolutionary firearm technology, which they say FN and H&K aren't producing.

3. what's the useful life of an m4 or m4a1 in terms of rounds? how much does one cost?

4. what are troops actually saying about the m4 these days? colt touts a report that 90% of troops are happy with the m4 (i think it's referenced in the wikipedia article, actually) - is this statistic misleading in any way? is there some offsetting issue that they're failing to mention?

5. any other insights about the competitiveness of colt's m4 in the world market for military/law enforcement carbines?

thanks in advance for any responses. i'm a gun owner myself (sig 226, 357, remington marine magnum) and keep the sig next to the remote control, so i hope to post on the site periodically. my wife and i both have concealed carry permits and love to go to the range together (yeah, lucky guy, eh?). thanks again.

 

[Acera]

Not able to answer many of your questions, but I think the M-4 is not Colts to own. I think it is property of the American people, and our governemet will award the contract to who it thinks will best serve it's needs. I agree that FN might have a good chance.

As far as a move to a Scar or 416, extremely doubtful for general use. The M-4 is so close to the regular M-16 there are probably very few training issues. A totally new rifle would not be able to fit into the needs of an army at war, due to the basic logistics involved in a transition. Plus I don't think they have been battle proven like the M-4, and you really don't get that much of a benefit from them.

I think the next big change in rifles will involve a new cambering, possibly caseless.

 

[Mags]

1. The lowest bidder will get the contract
2. Not realistic at all for either to become a mass issued item
3. I have seen M4s go 30,000 rounds before we change the barrel out please note this is not a fully automatic weapon just 3 round burst
4. We are satisfied with the M4 jus wish the damn thing was lighter
5. Colt is just riding on it's name at this point, I haven't seen anything innovative from Colt for a decade or so

 

[Fremmer]

My nickname at work and life is Mags however that screen name is taken by some guy who made two post and hasn't logged in since May 2006. So please call me "Mags" not "The Real Mags". Thank You.

LOL, that's the first time I've laughed today!

 

[Shung]

We are satisfied with the M4 jus wish the damn thing was lighter

obviously you never carried a SiG550 over 75km

 

[highorder]

but I think the M-4 is not Colts to own.

The M4 is a technical data package that any vendor can fill. It does not belong to Colt.

 

[Acera]

obviously you never carried a SiG550 over 75km

And I bet it was not a walk on flat land, LOL.

 

[chuckusaret]

1. The lowest bidder will get the contract

3. I have seen M4s go 30,000 rounds before we change the barrel out please note this is not a fully automatic weapon just 3 round burst.

Lowest Bidder I have to disagree, not all procurement contracts are based on the lowest bidder.

I don't believe the military will soon opt to replace the M4. The M4 carbine is a shorter and lighter version of the M16A2 assault rifle, achieving 80% parts commonality with the M16A2. The M4 has selective fire options including semi-automatic and three-round burst (like the M16A2), while the M4A1 has a "full auto" option in place of the three-round burst. The M203A1 can also be mounted on the M4

 

[CoRoMo]

Lowest Bidder I have to disagree, not all procurement contracts are based on the lowest bidder.

I think this is correct. I've always heard that the .gov tosses the highest and lowest bids and then looks through the others. My company bids on government contracts almost daily, and that's what we've always used to guide us. We don't want to be the lowest, and certainly not the highest.

 

[Mags]

The Lowest bidder will get the contract. The military submits it's desired specs (MIL-Spec) and the companies bid what they can make the item for within the military's given tolerance.

 

[Chainsaw78]

many thanks for everyone's comments - i really appreciate your feedback. my impression is that colt's management team would like investors to believe the colt brand is important to the military and the soldiers, but honestly, as long as the carbine's built using the TDP to milspec standards, i think the military's more interested in a good price. if colt can't produce the weapons for a competitive price, they will not win additional m4 work. incidentally, apparently if anyone but colt produces the m4 for the US military, that company has to pay colt a 5% royalty fee (this is different from the old m16 terms), but i don't think this will really discourage new competitors from appearing.

also, the military's procurement process has moved more and more toward creating multiple suppliers and using 4 year ID/IQ contracts (so that it can more easily switch from one to another if it wants) and away from the old many-year, sole-source type contracts. i fail to see why the military won't move to create some competition in the m4 by buying from multiple suppliers. an example of this is colt's recent award for $130 million worth of FN's m240b's. seems natural that will be reciprocated.

who knows though. apparently we're supposed to hear something about this new 500,000 rifle contract by the end of 2010. we'll see.

 

[Acera]

if colt can't produce the weapons for a competitive price, they will not win additional m4 work.

I think that is how the system is supposed to work, and I sure hope it does! We taxpayers don't need any excess spending just because of the name.

 

[Chainsaw78]

yeah, totally agree. that's the way it's supposed to work. p

i'm sure you will agree, though, that sometimes the gov't has to float limited-term exclusivity offers (like the one colt had) so that companies will be enticed to do research on new weapons. no one wants to do all the legwork on a new weapon and then have all the competitors immediately access the final specs, right? just a typical patent issue.

 

[Acera]

i'm sure you will agree

I have no issues with that, or the rest of your post.


We do that for a lot of things in the military, from fighter jets to submarines. However, it is not required for everything. New service pistol for instance, lets let all the competitors duke it out on their dime. It is not like there is a shortage of folks making pistols these days.