Colt's M4 contract expired. Army acquires rights to M4.

[crazy-mp]

Well it looks like the new supplier for M4's for the military will be.....THE LOWEST BIDDER!!

Can any of the AR manufactures make M4's for the military? I thought that they were all back-ordered for at least a year

 

[SHvar]

I looked at a listing for a local police department near me when they got 6 Bushmaster rifles (didnt specify what models) for $3800, thats $633.33 each, this is from a local Bushmaster authorized dealer who sells them out of his house.

 

[Owen]

hwp, maybe that's what your police department is paying, but its not what the .gov is paying.

 

[Uncle Mike]

Well it looks like the new supplier for M4's for the military will be.....THE LOWEST BIDDER!!

Well... to my understanding, it has been like that since.....since forever.

 

[Owen]

Considering that the DOD limits Sole-source suppliers to 10% profits, and audits those suppliers often, the Colt M4 price at $1184, per Mr. Watters indicates that Colt can not go below $1076. Like I said, Colt's is either going to have to make some very major changes, or it's going to lose. Given the recent history of Colt's union, I suspect that those changes won't be possible.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

hwp, maybe that's what your police department is paying, but its not what the .gov is paying.

+1

The Pentagon wastes more money than a trophy wife. There is nothing that it cannot add worthless baubles onto to jack the price through the roof.

 

[Joe Demko]

Historically, there is an incestuous relationship between the Pentagon and the suppliers of military goods. It's good ol' Ike's military-industrial complex at work, just like he warned us about.

 

[Slamfire]

Considering that the DOD limits Sole-source suppliers to 10% profits, and audits those suppliers often, the Colt M4 price at $1184, per Mr. Watters indicates that Colt can not go below $1076.

What! Where did that come from? Only 10% profit? It is illegal to make more than 10% profit on a DoD contract?. I don't believe it.

Don't tell Halliburton. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15287

A DCMA inspector told me that the Government pays $130,000 for an armor up kit for the MRAP. But the MRAP prime pays $36,000 (delivered) for the complete kit from the subcontractor.

Incidentally, did you notice that the military side of Colt is a small business? Colt has been gaming the system to get contracts. I will bet that if you were able to dig deeper, they might be classified as a minority female small business in a disadvanted labor zone. If they move the Corporate office to Alaska, they might be able to claim that they are owned by Native American Indian's.

 

[crazy-mp]

Well... to my understanding, it has been like that since.....since forever.

In 1988 the M16 was being sold to the military for $488 today it somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 per unit.

I know the cost of retooling and designing a shorter barrel.....

Yeah, we really had a cost effective weapon, but the government could still buy them cheaper than any of us could what would a original M16 full auto or 3 round burst go for today with the tax stamp, 3-5 thousand?

 

[Owen]

if you can find transferable M16s for 3 to 5 thousand, I' really liek you to clue me in...

Crazy MP. the bas price for the M16 is actually less than it was in 1988. The big cost item is the quadrail and the flat top upper reciever. Both are pretty dang expensive.

 

[Daniel Watters]

In the current US military M16A4 contracts, FN's price is just under $700, while Sabre's price is $884. Many of the FN rifles seem to be destined for Foreign Military Sales, while the Sabre rifles will be going to the USMC. Under the same contract, Sabre will also manufacture M16A3 for the US Navy. These will cost $885 apiece. The 'First Article Test' reports for the Sabre M16A3 and M16A4 are not due until later this month, and service deliveries are not scheduled to begin until Spring 2010.

Colt has a contract of their own for M16A4, but it is basically on life support. After winning their award, Colt claimed that they had accidentally underbid ($795 per rifle). TACOM refused to allow Colt to increase their prices, and in response, Colt wanted to withdraw. In order to keep the contract alive, TACOM rolled back the number of rifles on order from 20,000 down to 154.

 

[RP88]

Colt is gonna lose badly to FN, even if they could make the changes. FN could still underbid them by a nice margin.

I still believe that any replacement is still going to have a lot of interchangeable parts - especially things like sights, rails, and optics that also make up a huge part of the logistics/budget and contracts for their guns. I also believe that for every person who wants to get rid of the M-xx platform, there is one person who wants to keep it for another 50 years.

 

[Daniel Watters]

Even if FN were to win a M4 contract, Colt will still receive 5% in royalties.

The M4 Addendum did not mandate that the US military must buy only M4 carbines to the exclusion of any other design. It merely demanded that if any M4 carbines were bought by the US military, they could only buy them from Colt up through June 30, 2009. The US military could have quit ordering M4 carbines any time prior to this date. Outside of political lobbying, there was nothing Colt could do to stop the US military from starting a replacement carbine competition.

That said, the US military can continue to place delivery orders for M4 carbines with Colt under the terms of the current contract until December 31, 2010.

 

[Daniel Watters]

However, when a replacement carbine competition eventually does start, I can guarantee its progress will be delayed by GAO protests, DODIG investigations, and congressional hearings as competitors are eliminated. It will make the XM9 pistol and XM110 SASS competitions look like friendly garden parties.