Quantcast

And the US Army's M4A1 Carbine contract goes to...

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Quiet, Feb 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Quiet

    Quiet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,085
    Location:
    bouncing between the 909 & the 702
    In 06-2011, the US Army placed a contract order for 100,000 M-4A1 Carbines.

    In 04-2012, the contract was awarded to Remington Defense.

    In 07-2012, Colt filed a protest with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

    In 09-2012, GAO announced their ruling that allowed manufacturers to re-bid for the contract.

    In 10-2012, Colt filed a second protest with the GAO.

    Today, GAO announced their ruling and awarded the contract to FN USA.
     
  2. Revoliver

    Revoliver Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2012
    Messages:
    304
    Location:
    USofA
    Colt still makes guns?!?

    I mean they cut everything but 3 (m16/4, 1911 and single action revolver).
     
  3. bogon48

    bogon48 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    99
    Any idea what price per weapon won the bid?
     
  4. blkbrd666

    blkbrd666 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    Georgia
  5. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    You would think someday, U.S. owned military weapons manufactures would wake up and realize they got the governments blessing, and money, as long as there is a pressing demand for weapons during war.

    And then when there isn't, they get the U.S. Government's Purple Barbed Shaft w/ Barbed Wire Cluster again, and again.

    Study the history of Winchester, Remington, Colt, S&W, and other U'S. comapnys?
    And you will see they all went beyond the call of duty to supply weapons during WWI, WWII, and Vietnam.

    And then got left bankrupt after the wars were won, or lost, and the contracts canceled.
    Winning U.S. wars is what directly left them all in the shambles we know today.

    It seems the government would rather give the M4 contract to a European arms conglomerate who happened to build another factory in South Carolina so they could bid.
    Then give it to a U.S. company who has provided U.S. arms for war since the Civil war.
    And has provided the M-16's & carbines since Vietnam.

    Now, we even got Remington / Bushmaster / Cerberus Capital Management LP back in the thick of things getting an M-16 contract when they can't even build a Marlin lever-action 30-30 anymore that works right!

    Too bad, so sad.

    I just hope to god the Chinese don't buy out FNH and shut it down some day.
    With this latest development, they are the only Foreign company left making most all of the U.S. small arms we fight with.

    rc
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2013
  6. Sam Cade

    Sam Cade Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Location:
    Rural Kentucky, surrounded by Amish
    That right thar is funny!! :D
     
  7. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    23,762
    i dunno. colt certainly seems to have embraced the civilian and competitive market lately, putting out some pretty dang good stuff. maybe they knew this was coming. it's not like they didn't already lose the m16 contract.

    heck, they're selling every gun they can produce. and they were even selling 6920s in walmart.

    gov contracts are a PITA. i would much rather be selling to civilians. more profit, less headache
     
  8. blkbrd666

    blkbrd666 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    Georgia
    +1 on what rcmodel said!

    One would think they would join in with the civilians in this gun war with the government before it really is.
     
  9. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,700
    Location:
    Virginia
    Damn, I was hoping that contract would make Remington more appealing when they go up on the block....

    I wouldn't be surprised if FNH bought Remington/Marlin/DPMS/Bushmaster/Para/NEF
     
  10. paintballdude902

    paintballdude902 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,872
    we can only dream..... maybe then quality would matter. but then they would be close to a dang monopoly
     
  11. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    They already are a monopoly when it comes to U.S. military weapons.
    This just makes it more so.

    And That is VERY troublesome to me.

    rc
     
  12. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,104
    Location:
    WA State (NOT in Seattle)
    Suddenly people will really want an FN AR-15. :D
     
  13. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,700
    Location:
    Virginia
    FN makes M16s for the military...but they can't sell them commercially...can't imagine it would be any different now.

    This whole mess reminds me of the Boeing-Airbus KC-X fiasco
     
  14. 9w1911

    9w1911 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    174
    Now, we even got Remington / Bushmaster / Cerberus Capital Management LP back in the thick of things getting an M-16 contract when they can't even build a Marlin lever-action 30-30 anymore that works right!

    +1395879348572309857230948203948572039847
     
  15. DocCasualty

    DocCasualty Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Maybe Colt can gear up and provide the rifles and carbines to meet the demand for the civilian population now? Seems the market is there for them to meet the demand.
     
  16. jim243

    jim243 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    I for one will not shead any tears for Colt, they have been screwing the American taxpayer (you and me) for over 50 years by over charging us because of their patent rights they bought from Armilite. Yes, Colt knew this was coming and what did they do, nothing but kept over charging. And as far as FNH they have been making AR's and SAW's for the Army now for many, many years. Actually, pretty good quality products.

    I'm sure that Colt will stay in business living off Sam Colt's good name. It might even make them a better company with having to come out with new products. I can see them making inroads in the SASS and 1911 markets.

    Jim
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2013
  17. Ehtereon11B

    Ehtereon11B internet infantryman

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    I have never been issued a Colt M4 in the military. I think I saw one issued to another soldier once in 2006 or 07. All my M4s were either FN or Bushmaster.
     
  18. davidjblythe

    davidjblythe Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    126
    I've always been issued Colts. Some of my buddies were issued brand new full size A4s that were FN made. I never had a problem with any of my Colts.
     
  19. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,104
    Location:
    WA State (NOT in Seattle)
    Of course people can't buy the M16 or M4, but the FN AR-15 should be the standard.

    Yes. U.S. built
     
  20. jeff-10

    jeff-10 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Location:
    South Florida
    Now Colt can concentrate on bringing back the Python, Diamondback and Anaconda. Reasonably priced of course.
     
  21. Quentin

    Quentin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,826
    Location:
    NorthWest USA
    Are you sure about that? Until this contract M4s have been Colt. FN made M16s. BM sold to contractors, LE and semiautos to civilians
     
  22. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4,704
    Location:
    Arizona
    Between the agreements - implied or contractual - to not support the civilian/independently acquired export market during military production and:
    The low balling per unit bids required to meet competitors "queering" bids
    The cost of maintaining testing standards often initiated post-contract
    The both in and out-of-bid support and training packages required to satisfy government contracts
    The government's willingness to shop your manufacturing and design development efforts around
    The climbing up the administrative back-sides of the bidders to ascertain U.S. nanny-state hiring/managerial/employment practices

    I can't see how any responsible board of directors would ever get on board with a U.S. contract these days.
     
  23. jim243

    jim243 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    Now that's a great idea.

    Jim
     
  24. MCMXI
    • Contributing Member

    MCMXI Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    7,988
    Location:
    NW Montana
    Are Marlins being issued to the troops now? :rolleyes:
     
  25. Owen

    Owen Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,042
    Location:
    Eagle Pass, TX
    Nah, FN isn't even close to a monopoly.

    Beretta has the M9
    HK has the M320 and IAR
    LMT has the M203
    Remington has the M16 and XM2010
    Colt has the M240 now.
    SIG has the M11 and P226/MK25
    Knight's has the M110
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice