Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

M4 Carbine proprietary issues: Colt vs US Govt.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Slater, Sep 29, 2004.

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

    Slater Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,115
    Location:
    Flagstaff AZ
    http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/fulc...e=/fulcrum/data/TR_fulltext/doc/ADA369360.pdf

    This is kind of a long but interesting document on some issues that Colt had with the Army and Navy on the unauthorized release of the M4 Technical Data Package.

    The Audit team recommended that some disclipinary action be taken against the engineer responsible and (I think) some other individuals. The Navy disagreed entirely, and the Army issued only a verbal reprimand. Not sure what Colt's take on the whole affair was.
     
  2. Trebor

    Trebor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,817
    Colt was very upset by the whole thing. There's some good info on this at www.thegunzone.com Go to the "History of the 5.56 Round" article.
     
  3. BigG

    BigG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    7,081
    Location:
    Dixieland
    I assume this is the article Trebor is alluding to:

    About the Mousegun Round

    This is a good augmentation to "The Black Rifle," a book that should be in every gun aficionado's library.
     
  4. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,566
    If anyone wants to see a perfect example of bureaucratic screw-ups, false assumptions, finger-pointing, cover-up, and excuses, that audit report is it. The report itself is pretty straightforward, but it is the DOA and DON comments that are really neat. I liked the one that said Colt's release restrictions did not apply because the wording did not conform to the FAR. That would really go nowhere if things ever got to Federal Court, since the Army bought off on the TDP.

    BTW, should anyone ever think that document is a Dan Rather forgery, I will sure guarantee it is not. Another area of contracting, but "been there, done that." No forger could ever come up with something like that.

    Jim
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page