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

[Jaws]

Quote from Army Times.


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/07/army_carbine_070609w/

Army acquires rights to M4

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Jul 7, 2009 15:16:00 EDT

As of July 1, the Army has taken control of the design rights to the M4 carbine from its sole maker, Colt Defense LLC. Translation: With an uncertain budget looming, the service is free to give other gun companies a crack at a carbine contract.

The transition of ownership of the M4 technical data package marks the end of an era and Colt’s exclusive status as the only manufacturer of the M4 for the U.S. military for the past 15 years.

In late November, Army senior leadership announced the service’s intent to open a competition for a new carbine this fall in preparation for the June 30 expiration date of Colt’s hold on the M4 licensing agreement.

The Army is slated to finish fielding the last of its 473,000 M4 requirement some time next year.

Army weapons officials maintain that it’s good to have the option of inviting other gun companies to compete to make the M4 as it is now, if the need arises, said Col. Doug Tamilio, project manager for soldier weapons.

“We probably won’t do anything with it right now. ... We have what we need,” Tamilio said. “The good news is we will own it now; that gives us the flexibility to do what we need it to do.”

Small-arms companies waiting for the chance to compete for the Army’s next carbine view Colt’s loss of the M4 TDP as a new beginning for the industry and for soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Now that the sole-source era is over, we hope to see free and open competition of any interim or long-term solution for the service rifle or carbine for the American soldier,” said Jason Schauble, vice president of the military products division of Remington. “Now there is a chance to get something better in the hands of the soldier. Why not do it?....... ”

 

[taliv]

very interesting! thanks for posting


edit: maybe it's time to give the FOIA a whirl!

 

[ArmedBear]

Interesting.

Anyone have opinions about how well different manufacturers' parts fit together?

In my limited experience they'll work fine but sometimes they're not quite EXACTLY the same -- looser or tighter fit here or there, etc.

Do you think this could have a negative impact on reliability?

 

[Number 6]

Do you think this could have a negative impact on reliability?

Most likely not, since any parts used will most likely have to conform to the TDP. Its not like the army is going to start buying Hesse parts for their M4s.

 

[ArmedBear]

Its not like the army is going to start buying Hesse parts for their M4s.

LOL

Guess that's true.

Then again, it's the Army.

 

[Polar Express]

Hopefully, capitalism will prevail, and get our soldiers an equal or superior (nothing against Colt) end product, for equal or less $$.

Ultimately, my main concern is that we give our soldiers what they need, both in design and support. As long as the quality reviews are proper, an open competition should lead to "better for less".

PE

 

[bernie]

Whoever makes them in the future, it is almost guaranteed the parts will interchange. Think about all of the mixmaster M1 Rifles and Carbines out there.

 

[ArmedBear]

Ultimately, my main concern is that we give our soldiers what they need, both in design and support. As long as the quality reviews are proper, an open competition should lead to "better for less".

Agreed on all counts.

I hope they can keep the likes of Murtha out of it.

 

[Badger Arms]

Will the Green Berets get their HK416's back now!? The Army took them away after Colt pitched a fit that they weren't special forces and that Colt's exclusive rights were being violated.

 

[feedthehogs]

How about a pool on how long it takes Colt to fold down that middle finger to the civilian market.

 

[rocinante]

I thought FN also made M4 for the army.

 

[Trebor]

I thought FN also made M4 for the army.

Nope, FN makes M-16's, but not M-4's.

Colt owned the rights to the "technical data package" for the M-4. That's the specific, detailed, technical info needed from a manufacturing standpoint to produce the carbine. This means that no one else could legally manufacture that *exact* carbine for the military.

The TDP is more then just the military specification for the weapon, btw. The mil-spec is the minimum requirements the Army laid down. The TDP is the acutally manufacturing info needed to make the carbine that will meet those specs.

If the Army does go to a second source for M-4 Carbines, it almost certainly would go with FN. They are one of the world's largest military arms manufacturers and already make the M-16 for the military so gearing up for the M-4 would be relatively straightforward.

 

[Mags]

Now Skill Craft and Lighthouse for the Blind can make our weapons they make practically everything else for us and do a mediocre job for the lowest bid at that as well.

 

[Slamfire]

I thought FN also made M4 for the army.

No, Colt owned the M4 TDP. Under a "special" agreement with the Army, the changes that Colt made to the M16 were agreed as proprietary.

This follows two Government behaviors

Rule One: Maximize the profits of the politically well connected and
Rule Three: Take the path of least resistance

So the Government guaranteed that Colt would be sole source for something like ten years, and then paid out the ying/yang for the M4 TDP.

For Colt this is trouble. Because FN has won every small arms contract they bid on.

I think the Gravy days for Colt are near an end.

 

[Jaws]

If FN wins a contract for M4, they can tell the army that they could deliver SCARS instead for the same price. Everybody wins.

 

[Pack]

I agree that the probable winner would be FN. This is possibly good news for us here in South Carolina. I live literally 2.5 miles from the big FN facility here that turns out the SAW, among others. The state could use some more jobs, to say the least.

 

[Jim Watson]

Might be tough down the road being beholden to foreign owned companies for all our infantry weapons. Beretta and FN have made nice so far, but they might not stay that way.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Looks like Colt is going to have to start making money other ways now.

Maybe they will start making revolvers again.

 

[mljdeckard]

Yep. I think they made a big leap of faith in putting the bulk of their eggs in the government basket.

And while I agree that FN will get the contract, I think we are going to see some interesting jockeying for attention from all of the major manufacturers.

 

[Jaws]

Might be tough down the road being beholden to foreign owned companies for all our infantry weapons. Beretta and FN have made nice so far, but they might not stay that way.

Lack of a competitive environment made Colt lazy. Companies like FN, that are used to fight and go the extra mile, for every contract they got, in every corner of the world, have the advantage.

 

[Jaws]

Competition brings progress and lower prices.

Look how far the computer technology came because of a healthy competitive environment. Now compare that with the operating system market.

 

[Eightball]

Beretta and FN have made nice so far, but they might not stay that way.

Something tells me that the Belgians, at the very least, are still appreciative to the US for their existence for the last 60-someodd years. Besides, that would be one heckuva losing battle.....a firearms company in Belgium vs. the US military. While it wouldn't be pretty, I'd set up an armchair and watch the show.

FN has nothing to gain by stiffing one of largest buyers on earth. Dunno about Beretta, though.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Will the Green Berets get their HK416's back now!? The Army took them away after Colt pitched a fit that they weren't special forces and that Colt's exclusive rights were being violated.

?

They took HK416s away from the Asymmetric Warfare Group, who definitely aren't Special Forces, and who are perilously close to being a military funded CAG Impersonation team the likes of which are usually seen at serious air soft competitions. Since CAG uses 416s and Glock 19s, they needed them too, to maintain a proper air of secret squirrelliness while pumping out the power point slides . . .

Don't recall any real ODA guys losing 416s if they were equipped with them.

 

[HorseSoldier]

If FN wins a contract for M4, they can tell the army that they could deliver SCARS instead for the same price. Everybody wins.

They could dumb the design down slightly to reduce costs (every Joe doesn't need the quick change barrel options, or the adjustable comb height stock) and probably have a winner in Big Army's eyes. Adopting something besides the M4 will open a real interesting can of contract/competition worms, though.

 

[C-grunt]

Might be tough down the road being beholden to foreign owned companies for all our infantry weapons. Beretta and FN have made nice so far, but they might not stay that way.

I here this all the time, but its not like they could just close up shop if they wanted to. All the plants are here in America so if they wanted to try it the Gov could just take over the plants.