[modifiedbrowning]

Anybody have an opinion on this court ruling? It is from www.Bushmaster.com

BUSHMASTER WINS TRADEMARK CASE BROUGHT BY COLT DEFENSE LLC.

Windham, ME (December 8th, 2005) - Richard Dyke, Chairman and principal stockholder of Bushmaster Firearms, is pleased with a December 6 decision of the United States District Court in Maine granting summary judgment for Bushmaster in a trademark case brought by Colt Defense, LLC. In the case, Colt accused Bushmaster of infringing the “M4” trademark and the trade dress of the M4, both of which Colt claimed it owned to the exclusion of others in the industry. In addition to denying Colt’s infringement claims, the Court granted judgment for Bushmaster on its claim for cancellation of Colt’s federal trademark registration for the “M4”.

Dyke said he is pleased, not only for Bushmaster, but for the entire firearms industry. “Colt has for years made all sorts of claims as to rights it asserted belonged only to it,” he said. “And this case clearly shows Colt has been overstating its rights. In this case, the Court determined that the right to use the M4 term and to sell firearms that look like the M4 type, are rights that belong to the industry, not just Colt.”

The Court’s order affirmed a prior recommended decision of a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the case. Among other things, the Magistrate’s decision:

Held that the M4 is a generic term which merely describes a type of firearm, and is not an identifier of Colt as a sole source for such firearms. In doing so, the decision noted that more than a dozen firearm manufacturers other than Colt have used the term M4 for years to refer to military-style carbines with collapsible buttstocks and shortened barrels. Since the M4 term is generic, the court granted judgment for Bushmaster that Colt’s federal trademark registration for the M4 should be cancelled.

Dismissed Colt’s claim for infringement of M4 trade dress both because the alleged trade dress is primarily non-functional and because Colt could not establish that the buying public associated the look of the M4 only with Colt.

Dismissed Colt’s claims for infringement of the terms M16, CAR, MATCH TARGET, AR-15 and COMMANDO because it concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion among purchasers as to the source of Bushmaster’s products.

The Court also held Colt could recover no damages on its only remaining claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

***

[IZinterrogator]

Dismissed Colt’s claims for infringement of the terms M16, CAR, MATCH TARGET, AR-15 and COMMANDO because it concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion among purchasers as to the source of Bushmaster’s products.I'm kind of suprised about the MATCH TARGET and the COMMANDO dismissals. M16 and M4 are military designations and AR-15 is the name of that style of rifle (which Colt did not invent), but the Colt Commando and the Colt Match Target were both names invented by Colt, not others.

[Dienekes]

So that's what Colt is up to instead of making better mousetraps. Shades of General Motors...Guess that's the difference between an OODA loop and a death spiral.

[Jeff White]

So Bushmaster won the first round. Do you really think there won't be an appeal? FN lost a suit against the Army and Colt over the M4 TDP. There is a good chance the Apellate Court will over turn this decision. Bushmaster may just be counting it's chickens before the eggs are laid.

Considering that there is a lot of case law where businesses in totally different fields have to change their names or product names, I really doubt that this case is over.

Jeff

[carolinaman]

Hi there,

Yes, I think both Colt and Bushmaster should stop spending money on legal fees for "patent infringement" suits that get passed along to us: the consumer.

Chris

[Don't Tread On Me]

I've heard a number of pro-Colt arguments. Some revolved around how the M4 is like a brand name representing a certain level of quality. Colt feels that the AR industry is hurt when LE agencies buy a bunch of Bushmasters thinking they are getting M4 equivalents for cheaper. It is a feature set they are after, and a certain level of quality - that which is associated with the Colt M4 rifles because they are of military spec.


When the agency is dissatisfied, they often do not replace with another brand, but instead look at an alternative platform.


Bushmaster has been riding on somewhat misleading advertising. They fluff up their carbines as M4's without ever really using the name M4. Regardless of the Colt haters say, the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact as you can see the differences in the rifles.



I don't know how valid these claims or arguments are. I don't know if this particular one was used in court or not. I know I haven't articulated them as well as I received them, but that's the gist.


If an agency bought Bushmasters over Colts, chances are it's because they couldn't afford the Colts. In that case, if the Bushmaster doesn't pan out, that is probably the end of their AR experiment.

[chrisTx]

Bushmaster has been riding on somewhat misleading advertising. They fluff up their carbines as M4's without ever really using the name M4. Regardless of the Colt haters say, the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact as you can see the differences in the rifles.

it is not 'fact' that colts are better than bushmasters nor is it 'fact' that it's better made. that would be an opinion.

this is big news for bushmaster. colt's patent on the M4 prevents other suppliers from being able to supply the US military with M4 rifles. bushmaster supplied M4s to the US military, primarily used by the 82nd airborne, in the gulf war, but colt threatened to sue the US government because they were buying 'illegal copies' of their rifles. now, bushmaster will be able to contract with the US government to supply M4s; along with any other AR manufacturer. poor colt will have to start charging reasonable prices for their guns.

[Roadwild17]

For the consumer this is good news, are fair prices going to be the outcome of these legal battles?

Maby they should just wip out a bushmaster and a colt and let them prove which is the M4 :neener:

[1911 guy]

The prancing pony has gotten to rely on name instead of quality and service for too long. The last time I bought a lower, my dealer had a Colt "Match" or some such nonsense supposing to have a good triger in it. Pulled like a handful of gravel. Bought a DPMS for half the price and have good experience with quality. They won't sell you half of what they make, but they'll take your money by filing idiotic lawsuits. Gee, another reason to be very disenchanted with Colt. I have handled several longarms made by them, shotguns to rifles, and have NEVER been satisfied with one. Cheap manufacturing and cutting corners too much. The last time I picked up a Colt, it felt like pot metal.

[ARperson]

the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact as you can see the differences in the rifles.



Gee, that's funny because my Bushy at least equals, if not outperforms, my husband's Colt any day. And it certainly isn't "better made."

I personally don't see where it's a big problem. No AR-15 type rifle you can buy today is really an AR-15. But we call them that just the same. So who cares if we call every 16", short handguarded, lightweight barreled AR-15 type firearm an M4? Just like we call all brands of facial tissue "Kleenex" or all boo-boo bandages "Band-Aids." They ain't, but try arguing that with your friend and see what kind of looks you get. Who cares? :cool:

[Thin Black Line]

So that's what Colt is up to instead of making better mousetraps. Shades of General Motors...

+1. Yep, what a complete waste of time and money that could have
been spent on R&D. This is why the next generation of small arms that
the military is looking into don't come from Colt --or Bushie.

[boing]

...the decision noted that more than a dozen firearm manufacturers other than Colt have used the term M4 for years to refer to military-style carbines with collapsible buttstocks and shortened barrels. Since the M4 term is generic, the court granted judgment for Bushmaster that Colt’s federal trademark registration for the M4 should be cancelled.

In other words, the term M4 has been made generic by so many other companies ripping off Colt's trademark for so long, so now it's OK to do so...?

[chrisTx]

In other words, the term M4 has been made generic by so many other companies ripping off Colt's trademark for so long, so now it's OK to do so...?

it's no different than the term 1911. how many M1911A1s are out there? had colt pulled that before, the troops in WWII would have been stuck without pistols. colt wants exclusive rights. how else are they going to stay in business? they don't have consumer support anymore.

i think colt is a sad, sad shadow of its former self. i used to own a lot of colt weapons and really liked them. i sold them to people willing to pay twice what i paid. given colt's position on most everything, i won't own another. a colt is only a prize to the ill-informed.

[pete f]

I am surprised with the MATCH TARGET dismissal, the would be like saying a python can be a hypoint, or a highway patrolman can be a uberti, that is a well documented and long standing Colt only trademark.



(i know Highway Patrolman is a S&W trademark, was using it as an example of a well known name instantly brings brand recognition.)

[antarti]

Just like we call all brands of facial tissue "Kleenex" or all boo-boo bandages "Band-Aids."

The problem is when some other company starts calling their tissues "Kleenex"... or their bandages "Band-Aids", or their cola's "Coke's".

I'm kind of suprised about the MATCH TARGET and the COMMANDO dismissals. M16 and M4 are military designations and AR-15 is the name of that style of rifle (which Colt did not invent), but the Colt Commando and the Colt Match Target were both names invented by Colt, not others.

+1

If somebody told me they were selling a "Commando" I would sure expect to see the Colt name on it, and would educate the seller (just before walking away) if I didn't.

Regardless of the Colt haters say, the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact as you can see the differences in the rifles.

I'm not an AR fanatic, but the difference (primarily in small details, machining cleanup, fit-and-finish) seemed apparent to me when I was comparing a Colt with a number of very respected clones, Bushmaster included. Actually the LMT stuff came closest to the Colt IIRC. FWIW I could care less either way since I'll never own one (Bushmaster, LMT, or Colt) since I think they're all overpriced.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So Bushmaster won the first round. Do you really think there won't be an appeal? FN lost a suit against the Army and Colt over the M4 TDP. There is a good chance the Apellate Court will over turn this decision. Bushmaster may just be counting it's chickens before the eggs are laid.

Considering that there is a lot of case law where businesses in totally different fields have to change their names or product names, I really doubt that this case is over.

Well, I just read the 34 page redacted opinion from the judge. A lot of stuff was redacted, so I can only comment on the quality of arguments that weren't redacted; but Bushmaster won this on a motion for summary judgment. In a summary judgment the judge is supposed to interpret all disputed facts in the way they are most favorable to the non-movant (Colt). In his opinion, the judge went point-by-point through every fact disputed by Bushmaster and Colt, including really minor stuff and explained what facts he chose to use for his decision and why he allowed or disallowed certain facts.

The main case Colt appeared to be making in the redacted version is that people might confuse a Bushmaster product with the Colt product and that diluted the value of the Colt brand. Unfortunately for Colt, they couldn't produce any person who had such a complaint. The fact that Bushmaster and other companies had been using M4 and other terminology claimed by Colt since the early 1990s (and Colt was aware of it based on the documentation) but chose not to sue until recently didn't help Colt either.

I imagine Colt will appeal the decision; but based on my unprofessional opinion I think they would lose the appeal. The facts just aren't good for Colt and appeals courts typically do not review the facts established by the trial court. The most they could do was say that the trial court judge was wrong to grant the motion for summary judgment and remand it for trial; but I don't see that happening.

Just found a link to the redacted published opinion, it is 76 pages in PDF format; but here it is for those who are interested:
http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/cohen/2005/dmc_09202005_2-04cv240_colt_v_bushmaster_affirmed_12062005.pdf

[Don't Tread On Me]

it is not 'fact' that colts are better than bushmasters nor is it 'fact' that it's better made. that would be an opinion.


It is a fact. Let's consider the following.


An M4 has, and should have, and buyers expect the following, all of which bushmaster does NOT have:

1] M4 feed ramps
2] Staked down castle nut on collapsing stock
3] Parkerizing under the gas block
4] Proper height front sight block (F-marked) to actually allow one to sight in the rifle properly with a flattop.
5] Magnetically tested and proof load fired Bolt and Barrel with a 77k psi 100gr load. Each and every bolt and barrel is done.
6] Properly staked gas key that will not come loose ever.
7] Enhanced extractor spring is standard
8] H-buffer
9] Double heat shields in handguards.
10] Handguards are made out of the non-melting real-deal material.
11] The receiver extension (buffer tube) is Mil-spec and the proper size to accept aftermarket type stocks like the VLTOR.
12] Colt has the real M16 carrier, that features a shrouded firing pin, and more metal at the rear.
13] 1/7 twist rates

There are probably a few other little things I've forgotten, but you get the idea.

colt's patent on the M4 prevents other suppliers from being able to supply the US military with M4 rifles.

This is simply not true. Anyone who can pass their tests can supply a weapon to them. The military doesn't care about names or trademarks.


bushmaster supplied M4s to the US military, primarily used by the 82nd airborne, in the gulf war, but colt threatened to sue the US government because they were buying 'illegal copies' of their rifles.

If you can, please provide a citation for that claim. It is HOTLY debated on other forums specific to the AR-15 that Bushmaster has never, ever provided arms to the US Military under contract.

In fact, there are long nasty threads that debunk the "gulf war" Bushmaster rifle story myth.


Maybe they are wrong, it's just that no one's ever provided a shred of evidence that Bushmaster ever provided weapons to our armed forces. Some believe it is a rumor/myth spread by Bushmasters marketing dept.



now, bushmaster will be able to contract with the US government to supply M4s; along with any other AR manufacturer. poor colt will have to start charging reasonable prices for their guns.


That's funny, because Colt's prices aren't really that much higher. LE prices for a real M4 over a Bushmaster fake is something like $150 more. Considering you get more for your money...I don't think Colt is at fault here.




Colt has a legitimate complaint. Bushmaster is riding on the fame and recognition (associated with reliability and being milspec) of the M4. When agencies buy something called an M4, they are expecting real M4 performance. Instead, they get loose gas keys and other totally unacceptable problems. No one but Colt offers a rifle with real M4 features...If you were in charge of a dept, you'd want to get yourself some real military grade hardware, not commercial copies. Well, a lot of these guys are not AR-15 guru's and just go along thinking that the configuration or likeness to an M4 makes for an M4. It does not for the reasons I listed above. The Colts outshine other AR's mainly when it comes time for full-auto and rapid fire. That's when an AR shows what its made of.


Gee, that's funny because my Bushy at least equals, if not outperforms, my husband's Colt any day. And it certainly isn't "better made."


I don't doubt that. But I doubt you're firing full auto either. It is better made, if it were not, believe me when I say it - the Government would be buying from Bushmaster too. I am not here to attack Bushmaster, they are a fine AR.

I haven't done any torture testing in my backyard, I can only go by what experts say. All the top-level carbine instructors across the country universally agree that the rifle that runs and keeps on running is the Colt. These are guys that run year round classes for the AR where each student fires 2,000 rounds in 3-5 days. They see what lasts, what doesn't, what breaks, what doesn't etc....They say the majority of clones have some type of breakage during a course.


They all unquestionably advocate Colt, and they aren't on Colt's payroll.

[HankB]

Regardless of the Colt haters say, the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact Few here have had the opportunity to test genuine "mil spec" versions of both Colt and Bushmaster rifles, simply because milspec M16 type rifles are machineguns and no post-86 machineguns are available in regular commercial channels.

So opinions are becessarily formed by evaluation of the rifles that are available. Features play an important role in perceived quality.

Features such as absence of a threaded muzzle, absence of a full-capacity magazine shipped with a new rifle, absence of a bayonet lug (for looks, if nothing else) and presence of a steel block in the lower to obstruct trigger work and the use of non-standard pins are all Colt negatives . . . as is the use of a plastic recoil buffer. And the 1/7 twist rate is - rightly - not viewed as a "plus."

Colt rifles I've seen are accurate and reliable.

Bushmasters are equally accurate and reliable.

Bushmaster's factory service is generally regarded as pretty good - Colt's factory service is best compared to a pile of steaming excrement. And it's for that reason I'll never own another Colt product.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This is simply not true. Anyone who can pass their tests can supply a weapon to them. The military doesn't care about names or trademarks.

Actually it is true. Colt developed the Technical Data Package for the M4 with its own funds and never licensed it to the Army. The Army assumed it had the rights to the TDP under the earlier agreement to produce M16s and gave the M4 TDP to FN. Colt sued the U.S. and part of the resulting settlement was that Colt would possess exclusive rights to provide the military with the M4 carbine until the patent expired.

If you can, please provide a citation for that claim. It is HOTLY debated on other forums specific to the AR-15 that Bushmaster has never, ever provided arms to the US Military under contract.

If you will click on the link to the opinion above, it references an uncontested fact that Bushmaster sold 65 M4 carbines to the Army in April 1990. It is also uncontested that Bushmaster currently sells AR15-style weapons including the M4 to the Department of Defense, State, Energy, and Interior (though I can't find any more reference to military sales despite the mention of current DoD contracts). Colt's lawyer did not contest either of the facts mentioned above and Bushmaster provided documents to support its claim in the legal battle.

In fact, there are long nasty threads that debunk the "gulf war" Bushmaster rifle story myth.

Guess we can now debunk the debunking.

Colt has a legitimate complaint. Bushmaster is riding on the fame and recognition (associated with reliability and being milspec) of the M4. When agencies buy something called an M4, they are expecting real M4 performance. Instead, they get loose gas keys and other totally unacceptable problems. No one but Colt offers a rifle with real M4 features...If you were in charge of a dept, you'd want to get yourself some real military grade hardware, not commercial copies. Well, a lot of these guys are not AR-15 guru's and just go along thinking that the configuration or likeness to an M4 makes for an M4. It does not for the reasons I listed above. The Colts outshine other AR's mainly when it comes time for full-auto and rapid fire. That's when an AR shows what its made of.

Colt apparently made some argument along those lines that was redacted in the above opinion. The court didn't buy it though. They noted that almost all of the agencies had trials before they purchased weapons and that individual officers were free to do research online or rely on the expertise of their FFLs to guide them. Personally, I think we all know the court took an unusually optimistic view of the situation here; but Colt was unable to convince the court that users would blame Colt for problems with rifles sold by Bushmaster and that was the crux of the argument.

The court's reasoning was basically that M4 was a generic term and Colt couldn't stop competition with their M4 product as long as people were able to distinguish between the M4 products offered by different companies and that big pony or snake on the side pretty well handled that. The burden on buying smart is still on the buyer.

[Don't Tread On Me]

Features such as absence of a threaded muzzle, absence of a full-capacity magazine shipped with a new rifle, absence of a bayonet lug (for looks, if nothing else) and presence of a steel block in the lower to obstruct trigger work and the use of non-standard pins are all Colt negatives . . . as is the use of a plastic recoil buffer. And the 1/7 twist rate is - rightly - not viewed as a "plus."


Mine came with a bayo lug, a threaded muzzle, a flash hider, 2 high capacity magazines....it does have the .170 pins instead of the .150, and the semi-auto's have the high-shelf receiver you're referring to. If you buy a select fire, it will not.

Neither of these so-called "negatives" impede function whatsoever. Poorly staked gas key will....


1/7 twist rate is a plus, I don't know why you'd think it isn't. A Bushmaster's 1/9 will not consistantly stabilize the 75-77gr loads that are the most effective .223's yet. You forfeit the ability to shoot the best loads available, unless you want to launch them as flying sawblades with a curved windage trajectory....

[Don't Tread On Me]

The burden on buying smart is still on the buyer.


Totally agreed, and on that argument, is truly the bottom line. But, Colt does make a good argument about LE's depending on others to know the difference between a Colt and a Bushmaster. It is interesting how that document even mentions Ar15.com.


Bushmaster's whopping 65 rifles isn't exactly a contract that allows them to ride the mil-spec quality reputation bandwagon in respect to their civilian rifles being sold all around to LE agencies. The military has never ordered mass quanity of rifles from Bushmaster. It is safe to assume that small quanity orders are hardly what people associate with large contracts. 65 rifles is nothing more than a trial batch. Since they didn't order from Bushmaster again, I guess we can assume they prefer the Colt. Wonder why? Price? Quality? Colt being in good with the Feds? IDK...


The military doesn't care about the M4 name...it was Colt bitching at the government because of the government going to others using that feature set as the "M4". The government wants a certain specification, a certain feature set. Names mean nothing to them.


I find it astounding how people are so adamantly against Colt, but will back Bushmaster. I attribute this to a "Colt hates civilians" bias that exists. I don't love either, I do know the differences though.


Bushmaster knows darn well that people will always favor and buy whatever the military uses or approves. It is like the EOtech vs. Aimpoint nonsense. When something is used by the mil, it usually means it is higher quality, or battle tough. It gains a reputation, and it gains a new status. It is a new symbol of quality. This can be a great aid for them and a selling point. Don't make it sound as though Bushmaster armed our soldiers in desert storm. That is a misconception and a myth.


I don't mind Bushmaster doing so, that's their business - not mine. However, they are trying to pass off rifles that are suppose to be as good as Colts. This is false. Colt claims this hurts their business. I think that is a valid argument. The court disagrees.


Right now, Bushmaster is a commercial AR. They ought to add the features, testing and quality necessary to claim they are as good as Colt. If they do, and can undercut Colt, chances are the Military would buy quantities from them.

The government really owns that design/features. Remember, Colt isn't a private company. They are partially owned by the government, and the way the govenrment subsidizes them- I don't believe they can do that, and the court ruled this way (court is the government after all)

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bushmaster's whopping 65 rifles isn't exactly a contract that allows them to ride the mil-spec quality reputation bandwagon in respect to their civilian rifles being sold all around to LE agencies.

Yeah, it isn't exactly impressive.

The military has never ordered mass quanity of rifles from Bushmaster. It is safe to assume that small quanity orders are hardly what people associate with large contracts. 65 rifles is nothing more than a trial batch. Since they didn't order from Bushmaster again, I guess we can assume they prefer the Colt. Wonder why? Price? Quality? Colt being in good with the Feds? IDK...

Well, after 1999, the Army couldn't buy M4s from Bushmaster even if it wanted to due to the settlement with Colt (by the way, there is an excellent discussion of this settlement here: http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/publications_article.cfm?rid=354.0). However, one purchase of 65 rifles over 9 years doesn't suggest the Army was bowled over by Bushmaster either.

I don't mind Bushmaster doing so, that's their business - not mine. However, they are trying to pass off rifles that are suppose to be as good as Colts. This is false. Colt claims this hurts their business. I think that is a valid argument. The court disagrees.

Actually, the court just said that Bushmaster claiming its rifles are every bit as good as Colt's is just doing business and is OK even if it hurts Colt's business. Colt only has a claim if Bushmaster is selling their product as a Colt's product or is selling a product that Colt's has exclusive rights to (for example, Bushmaster got nailed for selling double-heat shield handguards since Colt's has the patent on those). Colt has exclusive rights to the M4 Carbine TDP; but they do not have exclusive rights to the generic M4 name - which means Bushmaster can sell any rifle it wants under that name even if it isn't an M4 in any sense of the word. Since Bushmaster isn't using the M4 TDP, no issues there.

Also to be fair to Bushmaster, a plastic buffer is not milspec either and Colt uses them. Just because Colt is required to meet certain standards for the government, is no guarantee that they use the same care in rifles they deliver to the civilian market - likewise Bushmaster's contracts with DoD, State, etc. don't mean that you will get the same quality control those contracts get. I can say that most of the civilian Colts I've seen have excellent QC though and appear to benefit from the higher QC required by the military.

Right now, Bushmaster is a commercial AR. They ought to add the features, testing and quality necessary to claim they are as good as Colt. If they do, and can undercut Colt, chances are the Military would buy quantities from them.

Bushmaster would not only have to change their manufacturing and QC, they would need to spend more on K Street lobbyists as well before that would ever happen.

Remember, Colt isn't a private company. They are partially owned by the government, and the way the govenrment subsidizes them

Colt is a public company and IIRC something like 15% of the company is owned by the State of Connecticut's pension fund. I don't know that this constitutes partial ownership by the government or subsidy, though I am sure that like any other shareholder with 15% of the votes, the state has some influence on Colt's board of directors.

[Don't Tread On Me]

This is a classic case of a government lapdog getting betrayed by their master.


Colt developed all of this with government money, then they want to monopolize it in the LE and civilian market.


It's a catch-22 for them. They COULD claim that it hurts their business if they really did own the M4 name. But how can you own a military designation? If they owned it, they could prevent others from using it, but can they prevent Bushmaster from using the same features? IIRC, a few small things of the M4 design are actually patented, like the double heat shields...


BTW, Bushmaster was given the TPD by the government, the one that Colt developed. IIRC, they agreed not to profit from this...which is messed up, because why would Bushmaster build a trial set of rifles for the military when their goal isn't to profit from a potential contract? Also remember, while Colt developed it, they did so while meeting or exceeding government specifications.


Government doesn't care. They are out for themselves. If you work with them to develop a design...they consider it theirs. Even if you don't they consider it theirs. They take liberty to take any innovation and allow anyone to build it for them IF they think they can save a buck. Trademarks, patents and all of that are only legitimate when fought between private entities, when up against the government, they act as if they are exempt. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.



I don't have a plastic buffer. A lot of these claims about Colt haven't been true in my limited experience. I like having an M16 carrier, I like having the better staking on the gas key, I like all the little things that add up. The workmanship and machining is also better. This may or may not equate to better performance.


There is a difference between a Colt product and a Bushmaster, but now the government doesn't think so, at least when a name is concerned in markets...How hypocritical of them, when they buy rifles - features and specs are very important.

Colt rifles do benefit from Colt being the builder of the military rifles. They save money giving you their mil-spec stuff and having just 1 line of production, rather than producing a seperate cheaper civilian line of parts.


Bushmaster, when supplying to the government might build something very different from what they make for civilians. Maybe so, but there is a wealth of testimony from LE's across the internet that the rifles they get issued are no different from civilian Bushmaster rifles. So far, I haven't seen a single example of a Bushmaster that is different because it is an LE rifle. This only comes into play if the Dept thought they were getting mil-spec rifles with features associated with the M4 rifles which established that reputation and level of quality. Buyer beware? guess so!!! But also shame on Bushmaster for mootching off of someone else's quality and reputation to make a buck. It's their right, and there's no law against that, but it is shameful. Especially when LE's lives are on the line. Police administrators need to get their head out of their butts and research what they buy more carefully.


People can say that Colt isn't mil-spec becuase it isn't full auto, or has the .170 pins...and then you get into one of those arguments of what IS mil-spec and what isn't. You get purists who believe milspec is only that which a USGI carries into battle. This is probably true. But I certainly don't mind having my materials and workmanship be mil-spec..while just having full auto parts missing and 2" of barrel more.



It is kind of idiotic of the Colt haters to jump on Colt for this. Colt is defending what IS a better rifle. How can people attack them for that IDK.

[TexasRifleman]

Regardless of the Colt haters say, the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact as you can see the differences in the rifles.


Oh brother....... :rolleyes:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It's a catch-22 for them. They COULD claim that it hurts their business if they really did own the M4 name. But how can you own a military designation? If they owned it, they could prevent others from using it, but can they prevent Bushmaster from using the same features? IIRC, a few small things of the M4 design are actually patented, like the double heat shields...

Colt can prevent others from using patented features it uses on its own M4 carbine. It simply cannot prevent others from calling their rifle an AR15, Commando or M4 carbine, regardless of how close or how far it is from the Colt product.

BTW, Bushmaster was given the TPD by the government, the one that Colt developed. IIRC, they agreed not to profit from this...which is messed up, because why would Bushmaster build a trial set of rifles for the military when their goal isn't to profit from a potential contract?

What is your source for Bushmaster receiving the TDP from the government? There was no evidence of that mentioned in the recent trademark lawsuit despite a discussion of that issue and the law firm representing Colt in that negotiation with the government only mentions that FN received the TDP. They don't say anything about Bushmaster. In any case, I doubt the TDP of the M4 in 1990 was very different from that of the M16, so even if Bushmaster did get it, it probably wouldn't include most of the more recent upgrades to the weapon.

I don't have a plastic buffer. A lot of these claims about Colt haven't been true in my limited experience. I like having an M16 carrier, I like having the better staking on the gas key, I like all the little things that add up. The workmanship and machining is also better. This may or may not equate to better performance.

Colt does sell civilian rifles with plastic buffer as well as rifles with the bolt carrier unshrouded and the rear of the carrier cut away. My point is simply that the rifles Colt sells to us may not get the same quality control as those sold to the military.

There is a difference between a Colt product and a Bushmaster, but now the government doesn't think so, at least when a name is concerned in markets...How hypocritical of them, when they buy rifles - features and specs are very important.

Either you haven't read the opinion or you haven't understood it. Nowhere in there does the government say that there is no difference between a Colt and a Bushmaster product. The government simply says that M4 carbine or AR15 rifle is a generic term and that any firearms manufacturer can produce an AR15 or M4 carbine so long as they do not use Colt's patented improvements or market their rifle AS a Colt. Just like it is perfectly legal to build an M1 Garand that doesn't meet any government specifications (cast or reweld receiver, etc.) and sell it as an M1 rifle.

Also Colt might have had a better case for this if they had pursued it more aggressively when they first became aware of it in 1994. It doesn't look very good when your own documentation shows you knew about the problem since 1994 and did nothing to stop it until 2004. In most states, you can lose land you have title to over something like that, so I wouldn't be shocked to see the same principle applied to intellectual property.

Colt rifles do benefit from Colt being the builder of the military rifles. They save money giving you their mil-spec stuff and having just 1 line of production, rather than producing a seperate cheaper civilian line of parts.

Last time I looked, Colt did have a separate line of civilian parts including the aforementioned buffers, trigger guards, and bolt carriers as well as takedown pins and fire control group parts. I know the Colt LE6920 no longer uses many of the civilian parts but does this apply to the rest of Colt's rifles?

Police administrators need to get their head out of their butts and research what they buy more carefully.

I'd say that this goes for anyone plunking down almost $1k for a rifle.. Just like everything else in our great capitalist society, it is up to the consumer to do the research on products and decide what best fits their needs.

Edited to add - here is Bushmaster's motion for summary judgment and the results of the motion:

1. Bushmaster says its use of the term M4 predates that of Colt. - No judgment
2. The term M4 is generic. - Judge grants summary judgment - Granted summary judgment
3. Bushmaster's use of the term M4 constitutes a protected "fair use" of the term - No judgment
4. The is no likelihood of confusion among a commercially relevant group of consumers as to the source of Bushmaster's product - Granted summary judgment
5. Colt's M4 design does not qualify as "trade dress" (distinctive design meant to identify it with a particular brand and not functional) - Granted summary judgment
6. Colt slept on its rights entitling Bushmaster to use the M4 trademark - Bushmaster not entitled to summary judgment based on their claim
7. Colt cannot recover damages for its Lanham act claims because it does not have any actual evidence of customer confusion - Judge recommended issue go to trial; but agrees Colt cannot recover damages

[HankB]

Mine came with a bayo lug, a threaded muzzle, a flash hider, 2 high capacity magazines....it does have the .170 pins instead of the .150, and the semi-auto's have the high-shelf receiver you're referring to. Sounds like you got one of Colt's "LEO" rifles, which are "officially" available only to government agencies . . . though they do show up with some frequency in regular channels through the gray market. (gray market = 100% legal, but against Colt's asinine marketing policies.) Too bad Colt is still deviating from milspec where they don't have to with oddball pins etc. No doubt it's otherwise well made, but I hope you never have to seek Colt's factory "service." If you buy a select fire, it will not. I can't legally buy a post-'86 select fire . . . from any manufacturer. :mad:

[Don't Tread On Me]

Sounds like you got one of Colt's "LEO" rifles, which are "officially" available only to government agencies . . . though they do show up with some frequency in regular channels through the gray market. (gray market = 100% legal, but against Colt's asinine marketing policies.) Too bad Colt is still deviating from milspec where they don't have to with oddball pins etc. No doubt it's otherwise well made, but I hope you never have to seek Colt's factory "service."I can't legally buy a post-'86 select fire . . . from any manufacturer. :mad:



You know, I am not so sure that this is a "gray" market at all...my local gunshop, which is a very popular (see mainstream) one around here has the very same model LE Colt I have. Now, I paid $950 for mine brand new from an FFL on the internet, they have it for $1,899. At gunshows, there are many of them all around, but even more expensive ($2,499 if you can believe that!!!). Colt might say they are LE only...but that just seems like marketing hype to make these rifles more appealing. They are everywhere.


You can't buy a select fire, but a police dept can. When they buy the select fire, it will not have the high shelf receiver.


People always want what the perceive they can't have. As soon as something becomes LE only or Mil only...there is a frenzy to own it. Like Red Box Hornady TAP ammo, or in the past the Black Talon...or AP ammo for certain calibers...or whatever becomes LEO only or scarce. In most instances, it is silly - because a similar product exists of equal performance, it reminds me of young boys and baseball cards.


I could care less, I just want that which is built better, with better parts. If Colt really meant what people claimed they said about the LE carbines being LE only, they'd only sell them to police dept's or officers with dept letterhead. They'd require their distributors to do the same. They don't. So it's all BS.

[Too Many Choices!?]

I f you need out of spec parts, poor customer service, and an anti 2nd ammendment policy then buy the Colt:barf::uhoh: !!

The M4 feed ramps are nice but not worth the extra $$$, unless you get a CMMG upper...But get whatever cremes your twinkie.

[Don't Tread On Me]

Oh yea, I prefer their "mil-spec" 1/9 twist and cost saving HBAR... Here's a company that fancies themselves as a defense contractor that builds a mil-spec AR, yet hasn't even reached the stage where they can properly stake gas keys. They make lots of money, perhaps they should invest in a machine that does it properly like Colt does..instead, they are busy saving pennies using a center punch along with not parkerizing under the gas block. :D


Seriously though, what is so anti-2nd Amendment about Colt? Is there something I don't know about?

Is it because they've said that certain product lines of their rifles will be LE only, even after the ban, yet every single person whose wanted one, has one? Now Colt's have M16 carriers...Bushmaster's literature states that ANY M16 part is illegal in an AR-15, which is untrue. Does this mean Bushmaster is anti-2nd Amendment because they are denying you a better part/configuration based on a BATFE ruling that has ZERO legal basis? Same nonsensical argument people make against Colt for saying they won't sell LE rifles to civilians despite there being no law preventing civilians from owning such a configuration.


Please don't tell me you hold them with the same contempt as a company like Ruger, that fathered the magazine capacity ban. Or S&W who sold everyone out with their Clinton deal. At least S&W is trying to make it up to the community by producing newer and bigger handcannons. If anti-civilian attitude is all you have against Colt, then whatever. I prefer to hate companies that actively work against us.

[MTMilitiaman]

what is so anti-2nd Amendment about Colt?

Donald Zilkha

[lbmii]

Well regardless of everything posted here; Colt will soon be out of business.

They have been coasting towards a stop for how many decades now?

[cameron.personal]

lbmii Well regardless of everything posted here; Colt will soon be out of business.
They have been coasting towards a stop for how many decades now?


Then we better start buying as many Colts as we can as they will be worth a fortune!

[Lone_Gunman]

You know, I am not so sure that this is a "gray" market at all...my local gunshop, which is a very popular (see mainstream) one around here has the very same model LE Colt I have.

I find the fact that Colt marks their ARs "law enforcement only" to be politically distasteful, and reason enough not to buy from them.

I bought a new BushMaster right after the AWB ended, and have been very pleased with it. I compared them to the Colt's and could not perceive a difference in quality. The Colt was more expensive, but that was not why I didn't buy it.

In the end, I chose not to do business with a company that did not want me to buy its product.

They are both nice guns, and I would have probably gone with the Colt had it not been for their feelings that civilians should not own their ARs.

[Henry Bowman]

This legal decision has nothing to do with patents or whether Colt's quality is better than Bushmaster's. It is about trademarks. Colt claimed that consumers associated the M4 name with Colt alone. Clearly they do not.
In other words, the term M4 has been made generic by so many other companies ripping off Colt's trademark for so long, so now it's OK to do so...?Yes, this is how trademarks work. If you sleep on your rights, they can disappear. Unlike patents, which expire after a certain term, trademarks can continue indefinately. "Indefinate" can mean "short" if the consuming public no longer recognizes the alleged mark as an indicator of source. Hence, terms like escalator, asprin, and adrenaline are no longer trademarks, but once were. When the consuming public changes its collective minds, your trademark can become generic, i.e., no longer a distinctive indicator of source.

In this case, M4 may or may not have ever been a trademark. My advice to Colt: Pick a mark that is protectable for your model names, not "M-something," which consumers recognize as primarily a military designation of a certain configuration. The fact that all military M4s were made by Colt for at least a period of time does not cause it to be distinctive, i.e., an indicator of source in the minds of the consuming public.

[davek]

Slightly off topic, but how exactly do companies like LMT and CMT fit in to this argument? Don't they have U.S. Military contracts and don't they produce M4's, or am I mistaken about that?

[lbmii]

How can Colt trademark M4? Does not the military come up with these names on their own?

Are not names like M1, M14, M16, M249 and so on, military given names?

[TexasRifleman]

I find the fact that Colt marks their ARs "law enforcement only" to be politically distasteful, and reason enough not to buy from them.



I find the fact that Colt marks their ARs "law enforcement only" to be a sleazy marketing trick intended to drive up demand and therefore price for a rifle that isn't that much different than anything that can be obtained from other makers, and reason enough not to by from them.

The whole thing about these being hyped as "unobtainable" even though everyone that has wanted one has been able to find one is what makes me roll my eyes at Colt.

[cameron.personal]

I don't get this...


You can by a Colt Match Target M4 (not marked LE Only) for about $100-$150 more than a Bushmaster M4gery... Why wouldn't you want to pay the little extra for the extras listed by Don't Tread On Me Above....

An M4 has, and should have, and buyers expect the following, all of which bushmaster does NOT have:

1] M4 feed ramps
2] Staked down castle nut on collapsing stock
3] Parkerizing under the gas block
4] Proper height front sight block (F-marked) to actually allow one to sight in the rifle properly with a flattop.
5] Magnetically tested and proof load fired Bolt and Barrel with a 77k psi 100gr load. Each and every bolt and barrel is done.
6] Properly staked gas key that will not come loose ever.
7] Enhanced extractor spring is standard
8] H-buffer
9] Double heat shields in handguards.
10] Handguards are made out of the non-melting real-deal material.
11] The receiver extension (buffer tube) is Mil-spec and the proper size to accept aftermarket type stocks like the VLTOR.
12] Colt has the real M16 carrier, that features a shrouded firing pin, and more metal at the rear.
13] 1/7 twist rates

I understand the annoyance with Colt's policy of LE Only rifles but I cannot see that it would stop me from being an intelligent consumer and getting the best M4 for my money.

Regards,
Cameron

[Too Many Choices!?]

OH yeah, it won't :) . So you get more effective, arguably , but more expensive ammo to go with your more expensive rifle, that will not accept other manufacturers uppers without more expensive parts...What a bargain...I would have paid the extra do for a Colt, but why?MY Bushamaster feeds flawlessly. Does not need to be religiously cleaned to to run flawlessly. My gas key han never become,"unstaked". I have no need to shoot the super effective, but super expensive heavy loads, if I want I can get a 1/7 barrel that is better than Colts, for less. The stock thing is nice and the feed ramps are nice, but not worth the do when all properly made AR's will not stop ticking... So theres your valuie, with my Bushmaster's savings , I got a sure fire M73 quad rail handguard, and a few bricks of Wolf ammo to bo blasting with, and an optic:evil:. SO THERE IS YOUR VALUE....
And as has been stated earlier, there are manufactureres that will sell you an upper with all the Colt add-ons, for much much cheaper(cmmg). So if you like your prancing pony, that is fine, but don't call it the industry standard anymore because it isn't. There are probably 10-20X's the number of Bushmaster/Rock River AR-15's out there as Colt's, and many more Home built ones from reputable parts manufactureres, can BETTER than Colt:barf:...

Deal with it?Too Many Choices!? Colt is good, just not worth the dough when you can buldt a comparable procduct and have money left for optics, a case or so of wolf, and railed handguards....

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Any 1/7 barrel will shoot 55gr ammo just fine. Let's try and keep this thread related to the lawsuit/M4 issues. If someone wants to start a "which rifle is better thread" then let's start a new thread separate from this one.

[cameron.personal]

I think this is pertinent to the discussion...

On AR15.com
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=29&t=149078

This is straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak). Yesterday, I sent the following question to the Director of Sales and Marketing for Colt Mfg:

Hello,

My name is motown_steve. I was given your e-mail address by a user on 1911forums.com who said that you may be able to answer a couple of questions for me about Colt. As you may or may not be aware, there are some stories from credible people on AR15.com stating that Colt's policy regarding the sale of LE AR-15s is to require that Colt dealers and distributors obtain an LEO letterhead (stating that the rifle is being purchased for official use) from anyone attempting to purchase a Colt LE AR-15. Can you shed any light on this situation? Is it Colt's policy to require Colt dealers and distributors to obtain a letter on letterhead from a Law Enforcement organization stating that an LE model rifle is going to be used for official purposes before selling that rifle?

As you probably are aware, the features that seperate the Colt LE rifles (specifically the LE6520, LE6920, LE6921 and AR6721) from the rifles manufactured by Colt Mfg. are no longer prohibited by federal law. This makes these rifles highly desirable by citizen firearms enthusiasts and shooters. I look forward to your response.

With Regards,
motown_steve

Here is the response that I got from

When the ban was in effect we did have that policy, with the sunset of the band Colt no longer requires that practice. Colt has elected not to retro the MT product line. The LE products are still being sold to our LE distributors, they may have there own policy in place but it is not driven by Colt.

Mark Roberts
Director, Sales and Marketing
Colt's Manufacturing Co. LLC

[mikepirez@bellsouth.net]

First let me qualify myself.I have been in the firearms industry for 12 years.I'm a N.R.A. instructor & manged a gun shop for 11 years.I'm also a certified Colt Law Enforcement Armorer for the M16,M-4,AR15 weapons systems.Okay the staking on the M4 locking nut on the receiver extension(buffer tube) is a pain to remove if u wanna change stocks if u need to because of damage or personal preference.The staking have to be cut,then u need a Colt specific spanner wrench.To replace use locktite & a spanner wrench.The 1/7 bbls for the M-4 was designed specificlly for the Military issue SS109 62gr .233 ammunition.Someone posted that 1/7 twist is better for 72gr or higher bullets that is completely wrong.The 1/9 bbl is better for high gr bullets & also lower gr bullets like the most common one used the 55 gr.Its not that the1/7 won't shot them,it will,but not as well or as accurately becuase the 1/7 wasn,t designed for those bullets weights.It was designed for the 62gr SS109 or the M193 both current U.S. Military issue.The carrier keys screws aren't staked there pinched which is efficent unless because of rotten luck or whatever u bend or damage the carrier key & need to replace it.Well then get a dremmel,a good thin file,or go see a competent gunsmith to take those screws off.Oh if u go the gunsmith way which I reccomend unless u know what ur doing it gonna be expensive.The M16 versus the AR15 bolt carrier it doesn't matter unless u own a regidtered machine gun(M16 pre 86 transeferable).Any new Colt including the L.E. like the 6920 come with a factory formed block in the lower so u ain't gonna make it run anyway.In fact u can use a semibolt carrier in a full auto,but it wiil only fire in the semiauto mode.Since 1990 Colts for the civilian market all come with .170 sz pins,only L.E. or Military select fire rifles come with .155 sz pins not .150szSo if u have a pre 90 Colt AR & u need to replace the pins u need sz .155 pins.The new pins won't fit.The Bushmaster being issued during the first Gulf War don't know if its true,what is true sometime betweem1988 to 1995 A Marine Unit( Don't know which one) were given Bushmaster M16 A2 for testing.They preformed as good as the Colts,some Marines actually liked them better,but let's remeber Colts got the contract & they weren't gonna give an inch of it up.The article was distributed around to dealers by Bushmaster when u received the rifles or catalogs.If u contact Bushmaster they may still have the copies.It was called "Bushmaster builds a better M16",thats were I found out about the Marine's field testing them.FN supplied M16 & M4 for a while,but problems arose & they were replaced by Colts.If u wanna try out a select fire post86 M16 from Bushmaster contact & become friendly with a class 2 or class 3 dealer or even better become one & u can receive them under ur S.O.T. add on to ur FFL & go out & play.The Knobb Creek machine Gunshoot held twice a year in Kentucky is a good place to see & fire these weapons,but there some ranges that have them & will rent them.Returning to the carrier key screw I've yet to see any come loose in A Bushmaster,DPMS, or anyothe rifle.MP or magenitical particle testing done on Colt bbls or parts is nice,but doesn't make that much of a difference.I have owned a Bushmaster AR15,shoot it,kept it clean only had a jamming issue due to some bad South African ammo.The day I had the issue with the S.A. ammo ,I stopped,checked my rifle & switched to PMC' no more problems,not one single jamm.So Colt supplys the best extractor spring assembly,this is actually true u cantell if a new heavier one the harmonic dampener is black.Thats the plastic piece inside the spring.IIts not a big issue because I think its DPMS & Bushmaster sell a heavy extractor spring assembly & its so cheap it not even an issue.Wolf .223 Ammo is BAD!!!!! for any AR<M16 including Colts u wiill ruin the extractor & the e.spring assembly.If God forbit u need it especially anyone in L.E. for selfdefense or a fun day at a the range & it fail well blame ur self.Cheap now ,but expensive later maybe even life threatning.I don't wanna hear,but extractors & e.s.assemblys r so cheap the thing is it will give u no warning it just fail possibly when u need it most.L.E. 6920 & other models do come out to the civilian market once in a while ,but at a minium price is over $1500.00.I sell both,but sell more Bushmaster between $950 to $980 thats the M4 model.My instructor when I took the course actually likes the Rock River AR over the Bushmasters.Rock River makes a great rifle & cheap too.If u wanna see a good tortue test on a full auto ,my buddy is a manufacturer, go to www.AR15.TV - 1100 rounds in 15 mins one jam due to a mag failure.Last ,but not least M4 is a Military designation thats all.Like M9 is for Beretta 92F.That one would be harder to challenge than M4 only standing specificlly for the Colt Carbine 14.5 bbl A3 Mode select fire rifle.If Fact The burst fire model Colt factory model# is different than the S.OPs full auto model.Well thats all.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

First let me qualify myself.I have been in the firearms industry for 12 years.I'm a N.R.A. instructor & manged a gun shop for 11 years.I'm also a certified Colt Law Enforcement Armorer for the M16,M-4,AR15 weapons systems.

Thanks for stopping by; however, a lot of what you say flat out contradicts my own experience with the AR15 system or is simply wrong and the way you said it made it difficult to read and understand.

The staking have to be cut,then u need a Colt specific spanner wrench.To replace use locktite & a spanner wrench.

Staking the castle nut is done because vibration will work the castle nut loose (along with the telestock) eventually. Loctite is a good soluton as well though.

The 1/7 bbls for the M-4 was designed specificlly for the Military issue SS109 62gr .233 ammunition.

Actually, it was chosen to allow the rifle to fire the longer M856 tracer. That round needs the faster twist to stabilize it.

Someone posted that 1/7 twist is better for 72gr or higher bullets that is completely wrong.The 1/9 bbl is better for high gr bullets & also lower gr bullets like the most common one used the 55 gr.

The 1/7 twist is commonly regarded as a better choice because it will fire both the heavier 73gr+ rounds and the lighter rounds (down to 45gr) accurately. Many 1/9s will fire 73gr+ rounds accurately; but not all of them will. The 1/9 twist is borderline enough that some will work and some won't. You'll even have 1/9 barrels right on the edge that will only work when it is hot outside. Nobody wants to fire match ammo and get a 4-5" group at 100yds and that is what you can see with some 1/9 barrels.

Its not that the1/7 won't shot them,it will,but not as well or as accurately becuase the 1/7 wasn,t designed for those bullets weights.It was designed for the 62gr SS109 or the M193 both current U.S. Military issue.

You realize that the M193 is a 55gr bullet? Just above you say the 1/7 will not shoot that weight as accurately and now you are saying that it won't do that because it was designed for a 55gr bullet?

In my experience, the 1/7 will shoot bullets as light as 45gr as accurately as any 1/9 barrel I've owned in the past. If there is a difference, it is smaller than any shooter I've seen can measure.

The carrier keys screws aren't staked there pinched which is efficent unless because of rotten luck or whatever u bend or damage the carrier key & need to replace it.Well then get a dremmel,a good thin file,or go see a competent gunsmith to take those screws off.Oh if u go the gunsmith way which I reccomend unless u know what ur doing it gonna be expensive.

The "pinching" you describe is the proper way to stake a carrier key. I've owned, built and worked on ARs since 1990 and never had to replace a damaged carrier key. I've tightened up a few improperly staked and/or loose ones though. Also, I don't know what you consider expensive; but an entirely new AR15 bolt carrier with key (staked) costs about $92.50 and can be replaced by even a monkey.

The M16 versus the AR15 bolt carrier it doesn't matter unless u own a regidtered machine gun(M16 pre 86 transeferable).

Actually, it can make a difference since the notched AR15 hammer likes to grab the collar of the firing pin and smash it against the firing pin retaining pin. This happens on a Colt AR15 bolt carrier because the firing pin isn't shrouded like a Colt M16 bolt carrier. As long as the firing pin is shrouded, then I agree that the weight difference between an AR15 and M16 carrier isn't a significant one and won't make a difference in functioning unless the rifle was already marginal to begin with.

FN supplied M16 & M4 for a while,but problems arose & they were replaced by Colts.

There was no problem with FN other than the Army lost a lawsuit to Colt over improperly supplying the TDP for the M4 to FN. FN still manufactures the M16A2 and M16A4 for the Marines and Army. Colt has the sole legal rights to produce or license the M4 for some time to come, so M4s must be produced by Colt as part of the terms of the legal settlement.

Returning to the carrier key screw I've yet to see any come loose in A Bushmaster,DPMS, or anyothe rifle.

Actually Bushmaster improperly staked hundreds of carrier keys on their rifles and had a major issue with this in 2003-2004.

MP or magenitical particle testing done on Colt bbls or parts is nice,but doesn't make that much of a difference.

Well, I'd be inclined to agree with you based on my own experience; but I don't understand how you can argue that Wolf may cause sudden extractor failure that could cost you your life and should be avoided at all costs a few sentences later. Using Wolf saves money (and a fair amount of money as well) just as using non-MP parts saves money. In both cases, you accept a higher risk of failure as the price of saving money. Why is it OK in one case and not OK in the other? Because in my experience, I've seen more cracked bolt lugs and cam pins than I have seen sudden extractor failures.

[mikepirez@bellsouth.net]

I read the thread & it seem he knows more than a certified Armorer or Colt's Factory instruuctor who worked at the factory before he or myself was born.Everything in my post is berbatium from my memory,notes,& reading materials given to during the course.The 1/7 bbls was designed for the SS109 not the tracers in fact running auto with tracers shoot out the barrels.805 of problem with the rifle are due to the extractor spring assembly.If need be I will give the Colt Armorer's instructors contact info,fax u my diploma whatever.If u didn't work for Colt which I didn't or don't then don't make bold statemnets or call me a liar.I presented the fact by a man payed by Colt to give the course to Polcie Dept's or qualified candidates all over the U.S.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I read the thread & it seem he knows more than a certified Armorer or Colt's Factory instruuctor who worked at the factory

Well, whoever gave you the information, it is wrong.

The 1/7 bbls was designed for the SS109 not the tracers

So how is it that 1/9 and 1/8 barrels shoot M855/SS109 quite accurately if you you need a 1/7 in order to use that round? Check the June 1978 entry for this link:
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-3.html

It should explain that and a whole lot more quite nicely.

If u didn't work for Colt which I didn't or don't then don't make bold statemnets or call me a liar.

Feel free to show me the factual information that shows where I am wrong. "A guy who worked at the Colt Factory since before you were born told me" isn't considered credible especially when it goes against what many of us have personally experienced and lots of history on the subject.

THR has more than its fair share of armorers and gun dealers here. We require a little higher standard of knowledge than what sells stuff at the local gun shop.

[chakup]

I'd tend to lean towards bart's statements, but that's just me. :evil:

[Jeff White]

mikepirez,

I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but your instructor was wrong about a bunch of things. That's not really surprising, you can't expect an armorer's course to teach the history and development of a weapons system.

Bartholomew Roberts is absolutely correct in his assertion that the 1/7 twist barrel was adopted to accomodate the L110 (later to be adopted in the US as the M856) tracer. You can find the entire story in Edward Ezell's excellent refernce The Black RIfle. Start on page 337 with Extended Range 5.56mm Ammunition Developments.

There is a lot of misinformation and firearm urban legends surrounding the AR15/M16 series of weapons. I've heard it for years in the Army and in law enforcement training courses. The truth is out there, you just have to find it.

Jeff

[mikepirez@bellsouth.net]

The man teaching the course does & gets payed for it.The book The black Rifle is not offical source book although He did recommend it.Why would he say something if the company pays him to give the right information that i.He works for Colt do any of you.If he were wrong Colt would find out He's teaching it wrong & fire him right.If u want the info pay & take the course,then call the factory.If u wanna believe what someone wrote in a book fine.Colt continues to pay him & send him all around the U.S.teaching & representing Colt.

[Jeff White]

Mike,
Who taught your armorers course? PM me if you don't wish to post it here.

As for believong everything you hear, I wouldn't recommend it. In 1974, my drill sergeant told us that 5.56mm was so lethal because hydrostatic shock from the little bullet cause the flesh to explode. He even went so far as to fill a .30 caliber ammo can with water and blow a large hole out of the back of it to demonstrate hydrostatic shock. He was in the Army and they were paying him to tell us that, but it wasn't correct. If I were to adopt your attitude, I'd still believe that it was and swear that it was the gospel truth, even against the overwhelming scientific evidence that bullet fragmentation is what cuses small high velocity projectiles to leave devastating wounds.

Your instructor put out wrong information. It happens....

Jeff

[Don't Tread On Me]

1/7 twist rate is actually kind of a waste unless you want to shoot tracers. 1/9 will *should* shoot any magazine length designed bullet up to 75gr out of a 20" barrel (not sure about those longer than mag length VLD's). 1/8 guarantees stability for anything up to 80gr, and guarantees 77's being stable out of a 16" barrel (although there aren't many 16" 1/8s).

Sierra lists their 90gr bullet as needing a 1/6.5, while their 80gr says either 1/7 or 1/8. So figure, the 1/7 would be ideal for something weighing inbetween those.

The problem isn't just weight - it is really length. The greater the weight - naturally the longer the bullet due to the diameter always being the constant (.224). However, some bullets are longer than their weight indicates. This can be as a result of using ligher materials within the bullet. The SS109 has a steel core penetrator. That weighs less than lead. So the 62gr SS109 bullet is LONGER than an all-lead 62gr bullet would be. Longer without increasing weight requires a faster twist.

The same holds true of the tracer. It is a very long bullet. It is LONGER than the Sierra 80gr. There's a reason most 1/8 barrels are stainless target barrels, because they were designed to shoot the 77 and 80gr match bullets accurately. IIRC, the tracer is longer than the 80gr Sierra, but it weights in at 60 or so grains. That makes it a long but light bullet. A fast twist is needed to keep it straight.

The ultimate twist is probably the 1/8 - but no one makes a barrel with 1/8 that is in a military profile like a .625 "pencil", M4 or Govt. (not HBAR), non-stainless, chrome-lined, with a real 5.56 nato chamber, proof load and MPI tested using 4150 steel and an M4 feed ramp extension. At least none that I know of other than custom shops which cost a fortune.


This is why a lot of folks just opt for the 1/7 and call it good even though it gives a little more twist than is really needed. It guarantees you can stabilize the 77gr loads out of 16" carbine barrels and that's that. No need to wonder, no need to test. Just get the 1/7 and be done with it. It isn't going to wear any faster than a 1/9 for anyone to notice anyway (if it even does). There's nothing but positives, and really no negatives.

[vanfunk]

Bart and Jeff are right. I'm sorry Mike, but you've been done wrong in your education of Colt AR's. Pretty much everything you wrote in your first post is incorrect. It happens - pretty much everything I learned in Grad School is wrong, too:)

vanfunk