View Full Version : Army to Re-Bid M4 Contract
30 cal slut
10-02-12, 08:06
Question is ... can Colt bid any lower?
Lotsa luck to the W. Hartford crew!
Article date is October 1, 2012
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/10/01/m4-contract-protest-update-the-army-is-going-to-solicit-new-bids/
M4 Contract Protest Update: The Army is going to solicit new bids
I just received word from the U.S. Government Accountability Office they’ve received written notification from the U.S. Army indicating the service will implement the GAO’s suggested remedy after Colt’s protest was sustained over the Army’s $84m contract award to Remington Arms Company for the production of M4 and M4A1 carbines.
This means the Army will soon seek new bids in an amended solicitation for the M4 contract. Look to the amended solicitation to clarify how parties must take into account the licensing payments due Colt that date back to the 1997 M4 Addendum.
The Army’s letter to the GAO was received September 24. As per the Competition and Contracting Act of 1984, the U.S. Army had 65 days to respond to the GAO’s July 24 recommendation.
“We’ve received notification from the Army that it will implement the GAO recommendation and we are reviewing next steps with our Defense team,” says Teddy Novin, Freedom Group’s Director of Public Affairs. “We look forward to working with the Army as we move forward with this process.”
Behind the scenes, sources at Remington are not happy at the prospect of a recompetition since their pricing was exposed as part of the original award. Some have suggested Remington may simply protest the outcome of this second process should they lose and carry on a cycle of protest over the contract. I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that the merits of another protest will ultimately come up against the fact that the Army was complying with a corrective action suggested by the government. Dead end.
I’ll be interested to see if the Army splits the contract between Colt and Remington in a bid to appease both parties. If you’re new to the Remington M4 contract story, there’s more background in our previous articles.
Littlelebowski
10-02-12, 08:14
Is Remington unionized?
30 cal slut
10-02-12, 08:17
yes.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1471597/000104746910005410/a2195644zs-1a.htm
As of March 31, 2010, approximately 800 employees were members of the United Mine Workers of America ("UMWA") at our Ilion, New York manufacturing facility. The collective bargaining agreement with the UMWA was renegotiated effective October 2007 and expires on October 28, 2012. This labor agreement is terminable by either party upon notice to the other party. Employees at our other manufacturing facilities are not represented by unions.
CLTDEF hourly employees are represented by the UAW.
Littlelebowski
10-02-12, 08:20
yes.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1471597/000104746910005410/a2195644zs-1a.htm
CLTDEF hourly employees are represented by the UAW.
****.
I hope Colt can hang in there!:fie:
Here we go again. Seems like every time one company or another losses a contract they complain and whine (I know I'm going to get mugged for that comment). Either way good luck to Colt in the re-bid.
caelumatra
10-02-12, 09:05
Is this not part of the process that was started a few years back (or last year) about upgrading the m4 while concurrently seeking a replacement vs m4 if there were improvement to warrant it?
Or is this something different?
Is this not part of the process that was started a few years back (or last year) about upgrading the m4 while concurrently seeking a replacement vs m4 if there were improvement to warrant it?
Or is this something different?
Colt up until the last procurement contract was the sole supplier of the M4 and M4A1 carbines. The contract that Colt is disputing is for new standard M4 carbines with the option of procuring M4A1 variants as well if I recall correctly. When this contract was originally bid the plan was to have both the Individual Carbine Competition and the improved M4 program running concurrently, with these M4s forming a stop gap. However, I believe that the improved M4 program has pretty much been killed at this point while the ICC is continuing onwards and is already in its second stage.
Here we go again. Seems like every time one company or another losses a contract they complain and whine (I know I'm going to get mugged for that comment). Either way good luck to Colt in the re-bid.
Tell me about it. The Air Force will probably never get another refuelling tanker because of the Boeing-Airbus rivalry, and the 20 yr old KC135s I flew 30 years ago will be around for another 50 years.
Well, at least Colt has the 1911 contract with the Marines...:( Hopefully it will all be good.
sinlessorrow
10-03-12, 08:42
Colt up until the last procurement contract was the sole supplier of the M4 and M4A1 carbines. The contract that Colt is disputing is for new standard M4 carbines with the option of procuring M4A1 variants as well if I recall correctly. When this contract was originally bid the plan was to have both the Individual Carbine Competition and the improved M4 program running concurrently, with these M4s forming a stop gap. However, I believe that the improved M4 program has pretty much been killed at this point while the ICC is continuing onwards and is already in its second stage.
Who do you get your information from?
The Army is still focusing on the PiP, first stage was making M4's into M4A1's and procurring more m4A1's. second stage was a BCG and Forward hand rail PiP, out of 11 BCG entries none offered any upgrade, this includes the LMT, and LWRCI's super special one piece carrier with their fancy NiB coating. Under adverse conditions they did not perform better than the standard.
The handguard PiP is still ongoing with the first part of testing completing soon.
I'm sure LWRCi will get the contract. They make the best guns ever ever ever and have great customer service too! :jester:
sinlessorrow
10-03-12, 09:38
I'm sure LWRCi will get the contract. They make the best guns ever ever ever and have great customer service too! :jester:
Their super fancy one piece BCG with its fancy coating apparently did not even live up to the standard BCG in the trials.
Who do you get your information from?
The Army is still focusing on the PiP, first stage was making M4's into M4A1's and procurring more m4A1's. second stage was a BCG and Forward hand rail PiP, out of 11 BCG entries none offered any upgrade, this includes the LMT, and LWRCI's super special one piece carrier with their fancy NiB coating. Under adverse conditions they did not perform better than the standard.
The handguard PiP is still ongoing with the first part of testing completing soon.
Ah, I thought when they killed the BCG group portion they had killed the entire program more or less. I didn't realize they were still working on the handguards as I hadn't heard anything about them recently. My apologies.
sinlessorrow
10-03-12, 10:18
Ah, I thought when they killed the BCG group portion they had killed the entire program more or less. I didn't realize they were still working on the handguards as I hadn't heard anything about them recently. My apologies.
Only reason the BCG PiP was cancelled is because nothing was an improvement. The forward handguard PiP is still ongoing and I would be willing to bet it will show something, showing the improvements of FF over the M4 RAS will be easy.
From PEO
PHASE II: Exploring Improvements
PM SW completed its best value M4 bolt and bolt carrier assembly competition in April 2012, though the competition was scheduled to conclude in summer 2013. More than six months of testing and evaluation determined that none of the 11 competing designs met the overall requirements outlined in the solicitation. The M4’s current bolt and bolt carrier assembly outperforms the competing designs in the areas of reliability, durability, and high-temp/low-temp tests. The Army saved nearly $2 million as a result of the early completion of the competition.
Kinda shows how those fancy coatings like NiB are not all they say thy are.
MyHybridBurnsGasandTires
10-03-12, 16:58
Tell me about it. The Air Force will probably never get another refuelling tanker because of the Boeing-Airbus rivalry, and the 20 yr old KC135s I flew 30 years ago will be around for another 50 years.
Nope, Boeing got the contract on the third round (Airbus did not protest it) and they have been ramping up to get production started. Not sure when they will be delivered, probably will take several years from now.
Also keep in mind that Colt got the new M240 contract and from my understanding would be at manafacturing capacity just from this. This is why they didn't undercut Remington in the first place while also receiving 5% royalties from Remington for every M4A1 the Govt. bought.
Dave
Kinda shows how those fancy coatings like NiB are not all they say thy are.
You can test anything and have it come out with the results you want. Guys who are career military, and guys who have been involved in large testing programs understand where I'm going with this.
An "individual" made a comment to me after the XM-8 program died that you could test anything against the M4 right now, and the Army would have the M4 win.
Another comment which was made to me by knowledgeable people was that the Army wasn't going to change weapons in the middle of a war, and that after the war was over, there wasn't going to be any need to change.
sinlessorrow
10-03-12, 20:50
You can test anything and have it come out with the results you want. Guys who are career military, and guys who have been involved in large testing programs understand where I'm going with this.
An "individual" made a comment to me after the XM-8 program died that you could test anything against the M4 right now, and the Army would have the M4 win.
Same could be said for anything though, if you look at it like that no testing on this earth is fair and everyone cheats for their benefit. As to the XM8 program everything I have read on practically every website has said the gun sucked.
Company X wants to show their gun is better can company Y's, so they set it up to show this. on the other hand company Y has a test showing their weapon is better than company X, so how do we exactly go about finding something better when everything can be tainted and probably will be? even outside sources can favor one to the other and lean the test that way. This falls into the whole new BCG, Each company says how their is better in their testing, yet in military testing this was proven false. So who do we believe and how do we find the truth?
I can also say that personal experiences with those fancy coatings has been less than stellar leading to my BCG completely seizing up, this never happened on a standard BCG. This video demonstrates what I had happen with those fancy coatings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flju7NvWJ3c
I will also say that I do not see the top names in the industry pushing the fancy coatings, most still use standard phosphate so that is also telling.
As to the XM8 program everything I have read on practically every website has said the gun sucked.
Never even picked one up in person did you? Something tells me you haven't been involved in large scale weapon procurement or testing either. It would explain why you don't understand what I'm saying. Guys who have know exactly what I'm getting at.
Nothing wrong with that, opinions are based off perspective and experiences.
sinlessorrow
10-03-12, 22:41
Never even picked one up in person did you? Something tells me you haven't been involved in large scale weapon procurement or testing either. It would explain why you don't understand what I'm saying. Guys who have know exactly what I'm getting at.
Nothing wrong with that, opinions are based off perspective and experiences.
I never have used the XM8, but I have seen the opinions of those who have and they seem to be negative.
One thing to remember is that those of us who are not apart of all the selecting of stuff all we have to go on is the word of others. All of the information is incredibly secretive and none is released to the public, so all we have to go on is the word of those who did the testing. In this case PEO Soldier.
A good point was made over on WeaponEvolution about this topic.
WHO GIVES A ****? :rolleyes:..
As to the XM8 program everything
"It must be true! It was written on Internet!" :blink:
sinlessorrow
10-04-12, 15:43
"It must be true! It was written on Internet!" :blink:
Nvm I wont go there with you Montrala.
ruedger455@yahoo.com
10-04-12, 18:20
They should just go with bcm. Forget the bids!
30 cal slut
10-04-12, 19:02
A good point was made over on WeaponEvolution about this topic.
WHO GIVES A ****? :rolleyes:..
Colt Defense is staring at bankruptcy if they can't offset loss of army sales with international and commercial orders.
It is a very dysfunctional situation, to say the least.
Colt Defense is staring at bankruptcy if they can't offset loss of army sales with international and commercial orders.
It is a very dysfunctional situation, to say the least.
Colt isn't the only Defense Contractor looking at bankruptcy, that's why all major programs are being protested.
Dirtyboy333
10-05-12, 01:15
Same could be said for anything though, if you look at it like that no testing on this earth is fair and everyone cheats for their benefit. As to the XM8 program everything I have read on practically every website has said the gun sucked.
Company X wants to show their gun is better can company Y's, so they set it up to show this. on the other hand company Y has a test showing their weapon is better than company X, so how do we exactly go about finding something better when everything can be tainted and probably will be? even outside sources can favor one to the other and lean the test that way. This falls into the whole new BCG, Each company says how their is better in their testing, yet in military testing this was proven false. So who do we believe and how do we find the truth?
I can also say that personal experiences with those fancy coatings has been less than stellar leading to my BCG completely seizing up, this never happened on a standard BCG. This video demonstrates what I had happen with those fancy coatings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flju7NvWJ3c
I will also say that I do not see the top names in the industry pushing the fancy coatings, most still use standard phosphate so that is also telling.
All that video hows is that you should probably use a couple drops of lube.
What happened to the gas piston operated M6 which was supposed to replace the M4? Why aren't we supplying our troops with the best weapons money can buy?
Nvm I wont go there with you Montrala.
I just merely point out, that there still is some things or some knowledge, that is not widely published on "all websites". And when you put some BS into the Web it spreads faster and further than real piece of information. Copernican-Gresham rule in work here.
In real world XM-8 could be even a plasma rifle, but it was doomed to fail before first prototype was even made. And controlled leaks to Internet, how supposedly bad this weapon is were just one (and least important) of tools used to reach this goal.
sinlessorrow
10-05-12, 07:31
What happened to the gas piston operated M6 which was supposed to replace the M4? Why aren't we supplying our troops with the best weapons money can buy?
Got any links to thise M6? If we wanted we could field a new rifle but at what cost? It would take billions and 10's of years to field a new weapon system and then you would only get marginal upgrades over the current system. This is similar to what happened to the SCAR, marginal upgrades at a steap cost. Why not PiP the current system for a fraction of the cost and stick with the 95% solution?
You also have to remember no other system has seen wide scale use and while its nice to think QC can stay great alot of times its safe to say when you have to produce 500,000 rifles QC is gonna slip some and some companies may try to find easier ways to produce parts. Thats something you never know about.
And of course it would still be shooting 5.56.
Montrala normally I agree but when you have SME's talking about how bad the XM8 was it is safe to assume it probably was not that good.
Montrala normally I agree but when you have SME's talking about how bad the XM8 was it is safe to assume it probably was not that good.
Read some SME complaining that biggest drawback of XM8 is lack of rails... while in fact XM8 had continuous top rail, side rails and bottom rail (refer to page 22 and following http://static.hkpro.com/straightgrain/docs/TheHKDecades.pdf). Most people commenting XM8 actually did not have contact with real thing and based their opinions on rumors and pictures or early "Starship Troopers" looking prototypes. As to reliability, Army dust test figures speak for themselves. I does not mean XM8 was best thing since sliced bread. Just it was doomed to fail for reasons that has nothing to to with it being good or bad.
Anyway, XM8 is as dead as well done steak. Let's see if PIP and IC programs can use lessons learned.
sinlessorrow
10-05-12, 09:01
Read some SME complaining that biggest drawback of XM8 is lack of rails... while in fact XM8 had continuous top rail, side rails and bottom rail (refer to page 22 and following http://static.hkpro.com/straightgrain/docs/TheHKDecades.pdf). Most people commenting XM8 actually did not have contact with real thing and based their opinions on rumors and pictures or early "Starship Troopers" looking prototypes. As to reliability, Army dust test figures speak for themselves. I does not mean XM8 was best thing since sliced bread. Just it was doomed to fail for reasons that has nothing to to with it being good or bad.
Anyway, XM8 is as dead as well done steak. Let's see if PIP and IC programs can use lessons learned.
Doc GKR was one who commented that the XM8 was a POS, as was Gordo, they would certainly know.
Also isnt jim Schatz/ aka g3kurz NDIA thing was full of innacuracies. Here it is http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Schatz.pdf left cold
I believe pat rogers corrected him on it by saying this.
120mm- well said, and combined with Gordo and others, give a more realistic approach vice the rants and commercialisim spewed forth by one with a strong agenda.
Revisionist history is useful to one who is agenda drivin and who uses "facts" skewed with errors.
On Pg 54 of his rant submitted to NDIA, he states:
===============================================
15 June, 1876–General George Armstrong Custer and 650 Calvary armed with single-shot Springfield model 1873 trap-door rifles (Custer left behind 2 Gatling guns) ride up the Rosebud river to the mouth of the Little Big Horn valley to 1,500 Sioux waiting with Henry, Spencers and Winchester repeaters.All 650 soldiers died!
================================================
Not quite, though it fits the agenda.
Accurate figures for this particular fight may vary due to hype, propaganda, lies, myths and age, but recent studies, books and archaeological studies have eventually produced appropriate numbers that are in the ball park.
The fight actually occurred on 25June 1876, 10 days later than your stated date of 15 June.
Custer was a LtCol at the time of the Little Big Horn Battle. He was a Brevet Major General of Cavalry during the War of Northern Aggression (as the folks down here refer to it), but not at the time of the Little Big Horn fight. While it was common to refer to him at his temporary rank as a sign of respect, his actual rank as the Commanding Officer of the 7th Cavalry Regiment was LtCol.
As an example of numerical confusion, one booklet (Little Big Horn 1876, Osprey) lists the following examples.
Before departing the Crow’s Nest on the morning of 25June, the 7th Cavalry was organized into four groups.
One Bn was commanded by Capt Benteen and consisted of D, H and K Companies, with a strength of 120 men.
A second Bn under the command of the XO, Maj Reno, had A, G and M Companies, at 175 men.
A third Bn, led by LtCol Custer comprised two separate wings. Capt Yates led Companies E and F, and Capt Keough Companies C, I and L, with a total of 221 men.
The Pack Train was escorted by B Company, with 7 men from each company detached to assist the packers, giving them 175 men- a total of 691 men.
However, several pages earlier it lists the on deck strength as 664 O’s and E’s.
The difference may be the normal fog of admin in war, or additional civilians with the expedition.
A more scholarly book Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Big Horn) states a total of 268 US Cavalry KIA- 262 on the battlefield and 6 DOW. This is significantly less than you stated in your presentation, probably as the result of believing that the entire command was wiped out when in fact both Maj Reno and Capt Benteen’s commands, as well as the Pack Train were engaged on Reno Hill, some 5 miles from Last Stand hill where Custer’s Bn was destroyed.
As an aside, Indian Warrior strength was guessed to be 2000- 3000, of which approximately 150 were KIA.
That the Indians were armed with repeating rifles is telling, but those rifles were of pistol caliber.
The 7th Cavalry was armed with Model 1873 Carbines (not rifles) of 45/55 caliber, not rifles (though some were present by choice).
These carbines managed to do very well in the hands of Reno's and Benteen's battalions on Reno Hill.
I have walked that ground and pinged distances, and while the fight at the west end was at relatively close range, the fight at Reno Hill was out to 1200 yds in some places.
While the XO (Reno) was combat inneffective to due being drunk, Capt Benteen offered an excellent defense and managed to fight off several thousand Warriors by skill at arms.
The Custer defeat was not a failure of weapons, but of tactics, ego and overconfidence.
As one very bright SFC on this forum stated after he walked the dirt there "What the **** was Custer thinking".
Gordo has pointed out similar agenda driven points in his posts, leaving one to wonder how much of this presentation was also smoke and mirrors.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pat _Rogers, 26 November 2009 13:41
S/F
Pat sends
www.eagtactical.com
As to the dust test have you ever seen the whole .PPT? It sheds alot of light on things if you have read it.
The most interesting parts of the dust test are these 3 slides you never see mentioned.
Slides arent loading ill work on it.
Politics and procurements aside...maybe we have developed the concept, that is a device "capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant" to it's end or peak. Afterall even when you consider the marginal improvements made with such things as free floating or piston operation, currents weapons are about as effective as thay can possibly be without a radical departure from the norm...that is not to say we have hit a wall...but where to go from here? caseless ammo...did someone say plasma or energy type weapon, seems almost science fiction even in these times. But it appears that ammunition developement is the next focus...smart bullets as it were. I am going to go get my SAA outta the safe now and fondle. :blink:
sinlessorrow
10-05-12, 09:48
Politics and procurements aside...maybe we have developed the concept, that is a device "capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant" to it's end or peak. Afterall even when you consider the marginal improvements made with such things as free floating or piston operation, currents weapons are about as effective as thay can possibly be without a radical departure from the norm...that is not to say we have hit a wall...but where to go from here? caseless ammo...did someone say plasma or energy type weapon, seems almost science fiction even in these times. But it appears that ammunition developement is the next focus...smart bullets as it were. I am going to go get my SAA outta the safe now and fondle. :blink:
Kind of my point for billions of dollars and 10+ years we can field a new rifle that offers us maybe 1-5% increase in performance, but is that small marginal upgrade worth the cost? Or is it more effective to focus on ammo advancements and PiP's to the M4?
DeltaSierra
10-05-12, 16:31
What happened to the gas piston operated M6 which was supposed to replace the M4? Why aren't we supplying our troops with the best weapons money can buy?
Something tells me that you don't have a whole lot of practical experience carrying a weapon...
I've heard that comment from a bunch of people, and none of them had a clue what they were talking about....
sinlessorrow
10-10-12, 09:46
Update: looks like they are rebidding
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/10/01/m4-contract-protest-update-the-army-is-going-to-solicit-new-bids/
midSCarolina
10-11-12, 11:03
If we can't even buy a new full-auto weapon I can't imagine the gov't letting civilians get anywhere close to a directed energy weapon.
Politics and procurements aside...maybe we have developed the concept, that is a device "capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant" to it's end or peak. Afterall even when you consider the marginal improvements made with such things as free floating or piston operation, currents weapons are about as effective as thay can possibly be without a radical departure from the norm...that is not to say we have hit a wall...but where to go from here? caseless ammo...did someone say plasma or energy type weapon, seems almost science fiction even in these times. But it appears that ammunition developement is the next focus...smart bullets as it were. I am going to go get my SAA outta the safe now and fondle. :blink:
everyusernametaken
10-11-12, 11:14
Update: looks like they are rebidding
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/10/01/m4-contract-protest-update-the-army-is-going-to-solicit-new-bids/
Interesting. I wonder how long this phase will drag out.
everyusernametaken
10-11-12, 11:21
If we can't even buy a new full-auto weapon I can't imagine the gov't letting civilians get anywhere close to a directed energy weapon.
FWIW, there are civilians building working rail guns, although they are connected to massive capacitor banks that aren't exactly portable. Not sure about the legal implications of this, but there are some garage-built units out there.
Colt is manned by United Auto Workers, Remington by United Mine Workers.
Remington bids and wins. Colt complains because they overbid. Sour grapes. Congress responds with "WTF?"
If the individual carbine has to meet a TDP and MILSPEC acceptance testing compliance standards the bottom line is Colt saw potential bankruptcy and now knows what Remington is willing to take as far as profit margin per weapon.
Colt's senators are Liebermann and Blumenthal, Remington's are Shumer and Gillibrand -- all Democrats in union states
Colt is manned by United Auto Workers, Remington by United Mine Workers.
Remington bids and wins. Colt complains because they overbid. Sour grapes. Congress responds with "WTF?"
If the individual carbine has to meet a TDP and MILSPEC acceptance testing compliance standards the bottom line is Colt saw potential bankruptcy and now knows what Remington is willing to take as far as profit margin per weapon.
Colt's senators are Liebermann and Blumenthal, Remington's are Shumer and Gillibrand -- all Democrats in union states
It is my understanding that the Colt bid and Remy bid were VERY close to one another. The Govt then examined the fact that Remy is not setup to do this kind of volume and honestly doesn't have the expertise either. So in the end, the value to the Govt just isn't there and it is worth it to pay $50-$70 more and have a company that knows what they are doing make the guns.
We shall see....
C4
Tell me about it. The Air Force will probably never get another refuelling tanker because of the Boeing-Airbus rivalry, and the 20 yr old KC135s I flew 30 years ago will be around for another 50 years.
Don't worry about it. I flew a 1957 model -135 last night, she hummed along code 1 all night.
Pistol Shooter
10-11-12, 15:22
It is my understanding that the Colt bid and Remy bid were VERY close to one another. The Govt then examined the fact that Remy is not setup to do this kind of volume and honestly doesn't have the expertise either. So in the end, the value to the Govt just isn't there and it is worth it to pay $50-$70 more and have a company that knows what they are doing make the guns.
We shall see....
C4
Good information, makes perfect sense.
As you say we will see how it works out.
I wouldn't make the assumption Remington doesn't know how to manufacture to military specifications.
US-contract Mosin-Nagant
M1917
Rem 870
870 Modular Weapon System
M40 (Vietnam era)
M24
M2010
As well as having run the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.
Should Remington fail to produce to the TDP and MILSPEC they risk default and never getting another military contract again. Bad form.
If Remington did not have the ability to earn the contract it would never have been awarded. This was a touchdown called back on a video re-play AFTER the game was done and Super Bowl rings given.
How many companies in the USA (and offshore) have produced M16s and M4s, and how many have knocked off ARs and M4geries?
It's manufacturing, not rocket surgery.
Light reading from a second source (keep in mind it's from Gannett): http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/04/20/us-army-places-order-for-24000-m4-carbines-with-remington/
An extract: "According to the Department of the Army’s Chief of Legislative Liaison, the Army today executed a delivery order to buy 24,000 M4A1s worth $16,163,252.07. The rifles will be made at Remington’s factory in Ilion, N.Y., from the Colt technical data package and will cost about $673.10 a copy. That’s a significantly lower price than the final order of Colt-produced M4A1s the government paid $1221 for in a 2010 contract."
The Army's agreement clause with Colt says the service can seek a second source if Colt's capacity is near maxed out -- which it supposedly is since they're now making M240 machineguns (ironically off FN's TDP).
dwhitehorne
10-11-12, 16:40
I wonder about the manufacturing capability. Remington and Bushmaster are owned by the same company and their numbers look much higher than Colt. I would quess military contracts are not included in these numbers??? David
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2010-final-firearms-manufacturing-export-report.pdf
It seems like there is always rumor and talke of changes, but it seems that nothing does ever really change. I will wait and see, but not in anticipation
The ATF report numbers should include all arms manufactured.
My understanding is all "Bushmaster" marked Freedom Group guns are made in the Remington Ilion plant. Wyndham Weaponry (the "Old Bushmaster") is back in their old factory with their original machinery.
I wouldn't make the assumption Remington doesn't know how to manufacture to military specifications.
US-contract Mosin-Nagant
M1917
Rem 870
870 Modular Weapon System
M40 (Vietnam era)
M24
M2010
As well as having run the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.
Should Remington fail to produce to the TDP and MILSPEC they risk default and never getting another military contract again. Bad form.
If Remington did not have the ability to earn the contract it would never have been awarded. This was a touchdown called back on a video re-play AFTER the game was done and Super Bowl rings given.
How many companies in the USA (and offshore) have produced M16s and M4s, and how many have knocked off ARs and M4geries?
It's manufacturing, not rocket surgery.
Light reading from a second source (keep in mind it's from Gannett): http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/04/20/us-army-places-order-for-24000-m4-carbines-with-remington/
An extract: "According to the Department of the Army’s Chief of Legislative Liaison, the Army today executed a delivery order to buy 24,000 M4A1s worth $16,163,252.07. The rifles will be made at Remington’s factory in Ilion, N.Y., from the Colt technical data package and will cost about $673.10 a copy. That’s a significantly lower price than the final order of Colt-produced M4A1s the government paid $1221 for in a 2010 contract."
The Army's agreement clause with Colt says the service can seek a second source if Colt's capacity is near maxed out -- which it supposedly is since they're now making M240 machineguns (ironically off FN's TDP).
I think they can produce the gun, but not in the volume needed and that is apparently why the contract was re-bid.
Yes, the prices are now lower and Colt's bid was very close to Remy's bid.
C4
sinlessorrow
10-11-12, 21:44
I wouldn't make the assumption Remington doesn't know how to manufacture to military specifications.
US-contract Mosin-Nagant
M1917
Rem 870
870 Modular Weapon System
M40 (Vietnam era)
M24
M2010
As well as having run the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.
Should Remington fail to produce to the TDP and MILSPEC they risk default and never getting another military contract again. Bad form.
If Remington did not have the ability to earn the contract it would never have been awarded. This was a touchdown called back on a video re-play AFTER the game was done and Super Bowl rings given.
How many companies in the USA (and offshore) have produced M16s and M4s, and how many have knocked off ARs and M4geries?
It's manufacturing, not rocket surgery.
Light reading from a second source (keep in mind it's from Gannett): http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/04/20/us-army-places-order-for-24000-m4-carbines-with-remington/
An extract: "According to the Department of the Army’s Chief of Legislative Liaison, the Army today executed a delivery order to buy 24,000 M4A1s worth $16,163,252.07. The rifles will be made at Remington’s factory in Ilion, N.Y., from the Colt technical data package and will cost about $673.10 a copy. That’s a significantly lower price than the final order of Colt-produced M4A1s the government paid $1221 for in a 2010 contract."
The Army's agreement clause with Colt says the service can seek a second source if Colt's capacity is near maxed out -- which it supposedly is since they're now making M240 machineguns (ironically off FN's TDP).
From what I understand the $637 of the Remy M4's was for the bare rifle, also from what I understand in 2008 this was the pricing for Colt M4's.
Some approximate prices for the basic (i.e. all MOS), 'standard' M4 configuration (rifle, standard sling, BFA, and one magazine):
M4 - $500
Rail - $300
BUIS - $100
M68 - $400
Aditional items:
ACOG $900
Surefire kit $350
Sling $45
PEQ-2 $600 (if I remember correctly)
So Colt got a do-over because they over-bid and lost.
Makes me wonder how many contract awards over the span of US military history would have changed once everyone saw their competition's cards.
I went through basic training with a GM-Hydramatic M16A1 and there was nothing wrong with it.
everyusernametaken
10-11-12, 21:51
From what I understand the $637 of the Remy M4's was for the bare rifle, also from what I understand in 2008 this was the pricing for Colt M4's.
Some approximate prices for the basic (i.e. all MOS), 'standard' M4 configuration (rifle, standard sling, BFA, and one magazine):
M4 - $500
Rail - $300
BUIS - $100
M68 - $400
Aditional items:
ACOG $900
Surefire kit $350
Sling $45
PEQ-2 $600 (if I remember correctly)
Two questions:
1) Is "rail" an M4 RAS?
2) What is the Surefire kit? The weapon light?
sinlessorrow
10-11-12, 22:05
Two questions:
1) Is "rail" an M4 RAS?
2) What is the Surefire kit? The weapon light?
1) rail is M4 RAS
2) I think its the M962 kit, but I could be wrong.
So Colt got a do-over because they over-bid and lost.
Makes me wonder how many contract awards over the span of US military history would have changed once everyone saw their competition's cards.
I went through basic training with a GM-Hydramatic M16A1 and there was nothing wrong with it.
They didn't get a do-over because they overbid, they got a do-over because of the accounting treatment for Colt's royalties amongst other arguments. On a much smaller scale we had a contract for new ambulances for our local EMS get re-bid because of a screw up very similar to this. It is what it is and the Army will probably wind up having to pay less overall for the contract (Win-win for the Army, not so much for both Colt and Freedom Group).
Also, you're showing your age there Sinister.
They didn't get a do-over because they overbid, they got a do-over because of the accounting treatment for Colt's royalties amongst other arguments. On a much smaller scale we had a contract for new ambulances for our local EMS get re-bid because of a screw up very similar to this. It is what it is and the Army will probably wind up having to pay less overall for the contract (Win-win for the Army, not so much for both Colt and Freedom Group).
Also, you're showing your age there Sinister.
That was my thinking. In the end, if the taxpayer can end up with a smaller bill, it ain't all that bad.
30 cal slut
10-12-12, 07:32
So Colt got a do-over because they over-bid and lost.
Makes me wonder how many contract awards over the span of US military history would have changed once everyone saw their competition's cards.
I went through basic training with a GM-Hydramatic M16A1 and there was nothing wrong with it.
IIRC, CLTDEF bid $700 ish.
GUN (that's the bond ticker symbol for Freedom Group) bid $673, but my understanding this was not inclusive of the 2.5% ish per blaster TDP royalty.
They are not that far apart on unit price.
So Colt got a do-over because they over-bid and lost.
Makes me wonder how many contract awards over the span of US military history would have changed once everyone saw their competition's cards.
I went through basic training with a GM-Hydramatic M16A1 and there was nothing wrong with it.
I don't think so. When we say "overbid" I honestly think that the difference between the bids was tiny (like under $50 dollars)!
The Govt cannot deliver a contract to a company that simply cannot fill it (as they are not set up to do this kind of volume). So that is why it is going to be re-competed).
C4
The difference between the Beretta 92 and the SIG 226 to become the M9 was less than $25 a copy.
Bottom line if the United States Government thought Remington couldn't meet contract requirements (approximately 1200 weapons per month for the first two deliveries) they should never have awarded the contract.
Colt is getting a second chance, plain and simple, after dicking the dog. They still haven't figured it out after having lost their first M16A4 contract to FN years ago.
Should they win, giving the taxpayer a break, they have to deliver per usual even with their M240L contract. Chances are they can do that using their Colt Canada line (if it is open and has capacity) with no problems.
30 cal slut
10-12-12, 12:13
In the meantime, it looks like CLTDEF is taking steps to get directly back into the commercial channel.
Could a CLTDEF & CMC reunion be in the works? How is CLTDEF going to fund this transaction with relatively little cash on hand? (Yes, CMC is comparatively tiny).
Can the re-combined entity fix its dysfunctional commercial distribution strategy? Is it too late to do so, with 150+ odd AR builders out there? Does the combination even make sense given that CMC makes a ~5% markup on commercial-bound M4's?
How is the newco going to work around the purported social responsibility limitations imposed by Blackstone Group L.P.?, which doesn't seem to be terribly keen on CLTDEF selling guns directly to civilians?
Will the second half of 2012 positive free cash flow guidance pan out?
Why the hell can't I get a CM-901 where the damn thing is manufactured?
Should I blow my wad on an OBR instead?
Inquiring minds wanna know.
;)
Bottom line if the United States Government thought Remington couldn't meet contract requirements (approximately 1200 weapons per month for the first two deliveries) they should never have awarded the contract.
Totally agree.
C4
In the meantime, it looks like CLTDEF is taking steps to get directly back into the commercial channel.
Could a CLTDEF & CMC reunion be in the works? How is CLTDEF going to fund this transaction with relatively little cash on hand? (Yes, CMC is comparatively tiny).
Can the re-combined entity fix its dysfunctional commercial distribution strategy? Is it too late to do so, with 150+ odd AR builders out there? Does the combination even make sense given that CMC makes a ~5% markup on commercial-bound M4's?
How is the newco going to work around the purported social responsibility limitations imposed by Blackstone Group L.P.?, which doesn't seem to be terribly keen on CLTDEF selling guns directly to civilians?
Will the second half of 2012 positive free cash flow guidance pan out?
Why the hell can't I get a CM-901 where the damn thing is manufactured?
Should I blow my wad on an OBR instead?
Inquiring minds wanna know.
;)
Agree and good questions for the future.
C4
30 cal slut
10-22-12, 12:33
It seems that CLTDEF has filed a second contract protest recently.
So the first protest was about CLTDEF's dispute over comparable prices - what's Remmy's price including the TDP royalty per carbine, and how does this compare to CLTDEF's?
No details available yet on this second protest, but could it be that the Army doesn't know how much the TDP royalty is supposed to be, because supposedly negotiations over this royalty have never been completed between the Army and CLTDEF.
So how is the Army supposed to be able to determine the royalty in the bids in the first place?
Hmmm. Cart before horse.
sinlessorrow
10-22-12, 12:36
It seems that CLTDEF has filed a second contract protest recently.
So the first protest was about CLTDEF's dispute over comparable prices - what's Remmy's price including the TDP royalty per carbine, and how does this compare to CLTDEF's?
No details available yet on this second protest, but could it be that the Army doesn't know how much the TDP royalty is supposed to be, because supposedly negotiations over this royalty have never been completed between the Army and CLTDEF.
So how is the Army supposed to be able to determine the royalty in the bids in the first place?
Hmmm. Cart before horse.
I believe the Army said the royalties should be a flat 5% but Colt said that you cannot give just a flat percentage for this type of thing. I forgot where I read that though.
Its possible that is what the second complaint is about.
30 cal slut
10-22-12, 12:37
I believe the Army said the royalties should be a flat 5% but Colt said that you cannot give just a flat percentage for this type of thing. I forgot where I read that though.
Its possible that is what the second complaint is about.
5% on TDP critical components, not 5% per carbine.
That works out to about 2.5% per carbine, correct me if I'm wrong.
In any case, it seems that percentage is up for re-negotiation.
justin_247
10-22-12, 16:52
Don't worry about it. I flew a 1957 model -135 last night, she hummed along code 1 all night.
Amen, brother! I've been working with KC-135s for the past three years and I've been pleasantly surprised with their overall reliability.
justin_247
10-22-12, 17:04
The Govt cannot deliver a contract to a company that simply cannot fill it (as they are not set up to do this kind of volume). So that is why it is going to be re-competed).
Grant,
Where did you read that the contract was being re-competed due to Remington supposedly being unable to meet production requirements? I've read a lot of articles on this and I have not read anything about that. My understanding is that the contract is being re-bid due to problems with Colt's royalties.
Remington has the capacity to produce 1,200 weapons a month... easy. They can probably far exceed that.
Grant,
Where did you read that the contract was being re-competed due to Remington supposedly being unable to meet production requirements? I've read a lot of articles on this and I have not read anything about that. My understanding is that the contract is being re-bid due to problems with Colt's royalties.
Remington has the capacity to produce 1,200 weapons a month... easy. They can probably far exceed that.
I never read it.
I don't get my info via the errornet.
C4
Prepare for ScottyRyan's head to explode.
http://kitup.military.com/2013/02/army-awards-m4m4a1-contract-fn.html
Army Awards New M4/M4A1 Contract to FN
by Matthew Cox on February 23, 2013 ·
FN Manufacturing has outbid Remington Arms Company and Colt Defense LLC., to win a contract worth just under $77 million to make M4A1s for the U.S. Army, according to an industry source. The award notice was posted on Federal Business Opportunities on Feb. 22 with an initial value of $9,370,615.
This is the latest round in what has become a hard-fought battle to equip soldiers with a better carbine.
The drama all began when the Army chose Remington over Colt, the original maker of the M4, last April to make 120,000 M4s and M4A1 carbines. That award meant that more soldiers would go into combat with the M4A1, a SOF version of the carbine that features a more durable barrel and a full-auto trigger. The Army’s decision to dump the three-round burst setting will give soldiers a more consistent trigger and better accuracy.
The GAO did rule in favor of Colt’s first protest over the Army’s miscalculation of royalties it would receive for contract awards on its M4 design. The July 24 ruling forced the Army to rework the original solicitation so the vendors that fell into the competitive range could submit new price bids. All gun makers involved were forced to reveal their previous price bids for the original $84 million contract to keep things fair.
Colt officials then filed an Oct. 9 protest with the GAO three weeks after the Connecticut-based gun maker received the Army’s amended Sept. 21 solicitation. The GAO denied Colt’s second protest in a Nov. 16 decision.
This latest decision makes FN the only maker of both M16A4s and M4 carbine variants for the U.S. Military (I think.) The majority of the contract will supply M4A1s to the Army as part of its ongoing effort to upgrade its fleet of M4s.
sinlessorrow
02-23-13, 16:30
My head just ****ing exploded.
sinlessorrow
02-23-13, 16:31
My head just ****ing exploded. So how will mods to the tpd be handeled now? By colt for fn!
I'd like to see how close the final per unit bid prices were.
shootist1970
02-23-13, 16:53
Let us in vest in cheese!!! That way whichever company whines next can have cheese with their whine!!
Actually, i could care less who builds them since whoever it is will have to build them military technical specs.
My problem is the people getting screwed here are the tropps who need them and aren't getting them while the latest "Whine" waits for a Judge or arbitrator in the mood to hear it.
Interesting tidbit about Remington. I was contacted by someone in Australia concerning the Remington R4 carbines they received. Turns out they are having issues zeroing them because they have non F-marked FSB's.
Littlelebowski
02-23-13, 20:23
FN is in a right to work to state, right?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Interesting! I like Colt, but I like FN as well. Wish Colt would have won the contract again, but FN makes great products as well. While overseas, my FN weapons were always good to go. Just wonder what Colt will do now.
FN is in a right to work to state, right?
(manufacturing) FNMI is located in Columbia, South Carolina.
(headquaters) FN USA is located in McLean, Virginia.
Both of which are in right to work states.
Honestly was anyone really surprised about this? FN already is doing M16's so naturally the M4 was next.
What i am intrigued about is what effect this will have on the IC competition with the SCAR.
My head just ****ing exploded. So how will mods to the tpd be handeled now? By colt for fn!
Isn't it the opposite way with the 240? FN designed it and holds the tdp, but Colt has the contract?
Well as a Colt fan, maybe a good byproduct of FN being awarded the M4 contract is the public may now get more of Colts "attention". FN makes a fine product and it would be nice to see them introduce an M4 for public consumption as well.
Well as a Colt fan, maybe a good byproduct of FN being awarded the M4 contract is the public may now get more of Colts "attention". FN makes a fine product and it would be nice to see them introduce an M4 for public consumption as well.
They cannot (which is why you have never seen a Civy M16 out of them).
C4
sinlessorrow
02-23-13, 21:45
Interesting! I like Colt, but I like FN as well. Wish Colt would have won the contract again, but FN makes great products as well. While overseas, my FN weapons were always good to go. Just wonder what Colt will do now.
Continue to work on all their other contracts.
Honestly was anyone really surprised about this? FN already is doing M16's so naturally the M4 was next.
What i am intrigued about is what effect this will have on the IC competition with the SCAR.
Given the fact that the SCAR doesn't offer any worthwhile advantages over the M4A1, and that they are now $600 per M4A1.....the IC is unlikely to happen until something worth spending all that money comes along.
Isn't it the opposite way with the 240? FN designed it and holds the tdp, but Colt has the contract?
Yes it is.
So will Colt still be heading up upgrades on the M4?
Magic_Salad0892
02-23-13, 23:49
I'm surprised KAC didn't put a bid out for the M4 contract. It'd be cool to see some. Even if they'd be exactly the same as the Colt or FN guns. Lol.
I'm surprised KAC didn't put a bid out for the M4 contract. It'd be cool to see some. Even if they'd be exactly the same as the Colt or FN guns. Lol.
Frankly, I don't think they could get close to the low per unit price FN did.
They cannot (which is why you have never seen a Civy M16 out of them).
C4
Grant, is there a reason as to why FN couldn't release an M4/Ar-15 to the civvy market? Is there a law if some sort or is is just a lack of interest on the part of the manufacturer? I guess in the current situation we have to be happy for what we have available but it would be nice to have another high quality AR provider.
Grant, is there a reason as to why FN couldn't release an M4/Ar-15 to the civvy market? Is there a law or is is just a lack of interest on the part of the manufacturer? I guess in the current situation we have to be happy for what we have available but it would be nice to have another high quality AR provider.
I believe it was part of their contract. They can produce the guns for the military, but they are prohibited from selling to the civilian market.
sinlessorrow
02-24-13, 00:17
I'm surprised KAC didn't put a bid out for the M4 contract. It'd be cool to see some. Even if they'd be exactly the same as the Colt or FN guns. Lol.
They are in the running for the FRAK which I can easily see them winning:D
Grant, is there a reason as to why FN couldn't release an M4/Ar-15 to the civvy market? Is there a law if some sort or is is just a lack of interest on the part of the manufacturer? I guess in the current situation we have to be happy for what we have available but it would be nice to have another high quality AR provider.
Can't, its a part of their contract and Colt owning the TDP.
wild_wild_wes
02-24-13, 00:18
http://kitup.military.com/2013/02/army-awards-m4m4a1-contract-fn.html
Army Awards New M4/M4A1 Contract to FN
by Matthew Cox on February 23, 2013 ·
FN Manufacturing has outbid Remington Arms Company and Colt Defense LLC., to win a contract worth just under $77 million to make M4A1s for the U.S. Army, according to an industry source. The award notice was posted on Federal Business Opportunities on Feb. 22 with an initial value of $9,370,615.
What is the spec on these? Full-blown SOCOM type with RISII and heavy barrel?
sinlessorrow
02-24-13, 00:26
What is the spec on these? Full-blown SOCOM type with RISII and heavy barrel?
RIS II is a SOPMOD package item. These will initially be M4A1's with the RAS, once the FRAK finishes and is selected they will get their own FF rail.
SOCOM profile barrel
ambi selector
auto FCG
are what set it apart from the M4
What I want to see is the military finally get rid of the regarded ass charging handle and get BCM Gunfighters. I am really liking the ambi Gunfighter a lot. I know I am asking too much though.
sinlessorrow
02-24-13, 00:43
What I want to see is the military finally get rid of the regarded ass charging handle and get BCM Gunfighters. I am really liking the ambi Gunfighter a lot. I know I am asking too much though.
That is a great thought, Isn't that something an individual can do though? as long as they don't lose the standard one?
Does it happen? Yes. Is it authorized? No.
That is a great thought, Isn't that something an individual can do though? as long as they don't lose the standard one?
What I want to see is the military finally get rid of the regarded ass charging handle and get BCM Gunfighters. I am really liking the ambi Gunfighter a lot. I know I am asking too much though.
And a BAD-ASS selector.
sinlessorrow
02-24-13, 00:51
And a BAD-ASS selector.
EH, these will come with the colt ambi selector. Not quite a BAD-ASS but still ambi.
Another thing to remember is this is for 120,000 M4A1's but the other 300,000 will be built through the PiP(or MWO), Colt won the PiP barrel.
wild_wild_wes
02-24-13, 01:23
What I want to see is the military finally get rid of the regarded ass charging handle and get BCM Gunfighters. I am really liking the ambi Gunfighter a lot. I know I am asking too much though.
Have you tried the Rainier Raptor? There is no better charging handle, IMHO.
Yes, I actually like them both, but the BCM is about 20.00 cheaper.
Have you tried the Rainier Raptor? There is no better charging handle, IMHO.
I love FN and I approve of this.
I'm kind of glad Remington didn't get the M4 and M4A1 contract. I love my Remington 700's, 11-87's, 870 and 7600. However, I've bought some Remington products of late that leave a lot to be desired from a QC stand point. A 7600 Carbine that started rattling horribly like no other a month after I bought it new, a 11-87 12 ga. 18.5" Police barrel that I can't get enough windage out of the sight and my sons Marlin 336Y that has a canted barrel that was made by Remington after they bought Marlin and moved production to Ilion, NY.
All three were bought new in the last few years and all three need to be fixed. I haven't made up my mind yet as to whether or not I'm going to send them back to Remington or just have a good gun smith fix them. Remington definitely isn't what they used to be. I wouldn't want them trying to make 1200 M4's and M4A1's a month for combat troops. Just my $.02, YMMV.
NYH1.
While it would be nice for Colt to make them, FN knows how to make quality weapons.
Remington? They should have stuck to bolt actions and shotguns, IMO.
:D
This is very good news.
.
While it would be nice for Colt to make them, FN knows how to make quality weapons.
Remington? They should have stuck to bolt actions and shotguns, IMO.
Definitely...on all three of your points.
Wow. Left field surprise to me.
Suppose it makes sense reg previous proven performance ala other contracts. I suppose they'll be able to use their hammer forge to good effect.
sinlessorrow
02-24-13, 10:24
Wow. Left field surprise to me.
Suppose it makes sense reg previous proven performance ala other contracts. I suppose they'll be able to use their hammer forge to good effect.
Are they allowed to use hammer forge barrels?
wild_wild_wes
02-24-13, 12:36
RIS II is a SOPMOD package item. These will initially be M4A1's with the RAS, once the FRAK finishes and is selected they will get their own FF rail.
SOCOM profile barrel
ambi selector
auto FCG
are what set it apart from the M4
What handguards are up for selection?
wild_wild_wes
02-24-13, 12:39
Wow. Left field surprise to me.
Suppose it makes sense reg previous proven performance ala other contracts. I suppose they'll be able to use their hammer forge to good effect.
From wiki:
"For the Individual Carbine competition, Colt has submitted their Enhanced M4 design, also known as the Colt Advanced Piston Carbine (APC). The weapon has a suppression ready fluted barrel, which is lighter and cools better than current M4 barrels. It is claimed to have "markedly better" accuracy."
Too bad the fluted barrel could not be folded into this program.
sinlessorrow
02-24-13, 13:06
What handguards are up for selection?
Only one I am sure about is the KAC URX with a FSB cut out.
As to the fluted barrel dont count on it. That just increases delay on barrels and when you have to push 1,500-4,500 a month a slowdown hurts.
Well considering both Colt an Remington are unionized and in very ANTI -GUN states maybe the contract should go to someone else! Why support NY/Conn. :rolleyes:
I'm surprised KAC didn't put a bid out for the M4 contract. It'd be cool to see some. Even if they'd be exactly the same as the Colt or FN guns. Lol.
You shouldn't be (suprised). Any company that wins the contract cannot sell an AR15 to the general public. That is why so many companies backed out of the bid.
C4
I believe it was part of their contract. They can produce the guns for the military, but they are prohibited from selling to the civilian market.
Correct.
C4
Just a thought and question...
What is the benefit of of providing for the military. You are taking your self out of the market.
sinlessorrow
02-24-13, 15:12
You shouldn't be (suprised). Any company that wins the contract cannot sell an AR15 to the general public. That is why so many companies backed out of the bid.
C4
Are you serious? I bet it wouldn't take long for clones to start popping up from ever manufacturer though.
Magic_Salad0892
02-24-13, 15:28
You shouldn't be (suprised). Any company that wins the contract cannot sell an AR15 to the general public. That is why so many companies backed out of the bid.
C4
Nevermind. That makes sense. How the hell does Colt get away with it then?
Just a thought and question...
What is the benefit of of providing for the military. You are taking your self out of the market.
If you have NEVER (really) sold AR's to the public, what did you care?
C4
Are you serious? I bet it wouldn't take long for clones to start popping up from ever manufacturer though.
Yes. It is part of the deal when you sign for the TDP.
C4
Nevermind. That makes sense. How the hell does Colt get away with it then?
They OWN the TDP for the M4 and M16. ;)
C4
Since a lot of you don't seem to know how these contracts work, I will let you in on another "shocker." FN has been paying Colt royalties on the M16 since day one and will NOW be paying them royalties on the M4.
C4
[QUOTE=C4IGrant;1560745]You shouldn't be (suprised). Any company that wins the contract cannot sell an AR15 to the general public. That is why so many companies backed out of the bid.
Sorry if I'm being ignorant but why is this?
sinlessorrow
02-24-13, 15:51
Since a lot of you don't seem to know how these contracts work, I will let you in on another "shocker." FN has been paying Colt royalties on the M16 since day one and will NOW be paying them royalties on the M4.
C4
I knew that. So does the winning company turn over their TDP to the military? Seems like a pretty shitty deal to me.
[QUOTE=C4IGrant;1560745]You shouldn't be (suprised). Any company that wins the contract cannot sell an AR15 to the general public. That is why so many companies backed out of the bid.
Sorry if I'm being ignorant but why is this?
Because they are only allowed to use the TDP to make guns for the Govt (not the commercial market).
C4
I knew that. So does the winning company turn over their TDP to the military? Seems like a pretty shitty deal to me.
Turn over? No. The Govt (in 2012) got the right to be able to give companies the TDP so that they could bid on a M4 contract. The company that wins (less Colt) has to pay a royalty (to Colt) on each gun (I believe).
C4
This is just another example of what should be a simple process ( closed bidding) being turned into a government circus.
sinlessorrow
02-24-13, 16:05
Turn over? No. The Govt (in 2012) got the right to be able to give companies the TDP so that they could bid on a M4 contract. The company that wins (less Colt) has to pay a royalty (to Colt) on each gun (I believe).
C4
I thought we were talking about the company that wins the IC. I think I got confused lol. Just looked back and yep, I saw KAC and thought we were discussing why they didn go for the IC. My bad.
The company that makes the M4 carbine should:
1) Make the carbine to Mil Spec
2) Have the production capability to meet the needs of the military
3) Be the lowest bidder during the initial process
Which company gets the contract should make no difference to anyone outside of the bidding process so long as our military personnel have a reliable carbine to use in combat. Having the most lawyers to challenge the loss of a bid should not be a prerequisite for getting the contract.
I thought we were talking about the company that wins the IC. I think I got confused lol. Just looked back and yep, I saw KAC and thought we were discussing why they didn go for the IC. My bad.
No worries. I figured one of us was confused. :D
C4
Let us in vest in cheese!!! That way whichever company whines next can have cheese with their whine!!
Actually, i could care less who builds them since whoever it is will have to build them military technical specs.
My problem is the people getting screwed here are the tropps who need them and aren't getting them while the latest "Whine" waits for a Judge or arbitrator in the mood to hear it.
The problem that the govt needs to fix in the procurement process is theres almost no cost to a company that protests a contract award. We see a lot of it in the aviation side of the house. They lose the contract then they use salaried in house lawyers to put together the protest which then has to be responded to by the govt. Their worst case if they lose again is exactly where they started, namely not having a contract. Best case is they get another bite of the apple.
There need to be bidding provisions that allow the protesting company to be charged for failed protests in some way. That would cut a lot of the crap out.
I knew that. So does the winning company turn over their TDP to the military? Seems like a pretty shitty deal to me.
My guess is that it depends largely on the wording in the contracts. Colt managed to hold on to the TDP for the M4 until just recently, when they had to give it to the .mil.
Turn over? No. The Govt (in 2012) got the right to be able to give companies the TDP so that they could bid on a M4 contract. The company that wins (less Colt) has to pay a royalty (to Colt) on each gun (I believe).
Yes, I believe Colt will still be getting royalties on each gun produced since it is their design. And while I don't know the numbers involved here, I'd venture to say that earning the royalties may actually be more profitable than winning the contract and producing the guns. With a ~ $600 unit price for each carbine, the margins must be pretty slim.
The problem that the govt needs to fix in the procurement process is theres almost no cost to a company that protests a contract award. We see a lot of it in the aviation side of the house. They lose the contract then they use salaried in house lawyers to put together the protest which then has to be responded to by the govt. Their worst case if they lose again is exactly where they started, namely not having a contract. Best case is they get another bite of the apple.
There need to be bidding provisions that allow the protesting company to be charged for failed protests in some way. That would cut a lot of the crap out.
That would be a very good start toward improving the bidding process and it would save the taxpayers a lot of money.
Well Colt's protest may have upset the apple cart but in the end the result is the M4 will be built by FN instead of Remhamster! :D
If you have NEVER (really) sold AR's to the public, what did you care?
C4
Just seeing that a the public side of things has a lot of potential for money versus the Military, where there are set numbers. Just trying to understand why limit, or "paint your self into a corner"? What happens when they don't order.
Not that my questions warrants an answer, it is just a curosity.
As long as it's built right, I don't care what roll mark is on the side.
Good for FN, and Colt still gets paid. So everyone will be fine.
My guess is that it depends largely on the wording in the contracts. Colt managed to hold on to the TDP for the M4 until just recently, when they had to give it to the .mil.
Yes, I believe Colt will still be getting royalties on each gun produced since it is their design. And while I don't know the numbers involved here, I'd venture to say that earning the royalties may actually be more profitable than winning the contract and producing the guns. With a ~ $600 unit price for each carbine, the margins must be pretty slim.
I wonder what actual parts Colt gets royalties for. Most of the parents expired a long time ago, which is why so many companies make ARs now.
I wonder what actual parts Colt gets royalties for. Most of the parents expired a long time ago, which is why so many companies make ARs now.
Well all I really know is that the history of Colt, the AR-15, and the contracts to produce them for the military is very long and comlicated. Colt has been very protective of the design and the various TDP's for the different models, as they rightly should be.
From what I understand (and please don't hold me to this), back in the 90's NWSC Crane passed out a bunch of copies of Colt's TDP for the M4 while trying to procure an accesory that needed to work with the M4. Naturally, Colt wasn't too happy about it, and after a great deal of legal and political hoopla Colt ended up with a deal that made them the sole source provider for the M4 for a set period of time, which expired sometime in 09. With that portion of the agreement expired, the military is now free to purchase M4's from other companies, but Colt still retains the rights to the TDP for another 20-something years, and any company that won a contract for M4's would have to pay Colt royalties on each carbine for the use of the TDP. The company who wins the contract also cannot produce civilain variants using the TDP, and after they complete the contract they must destroy all copies of they have of the TDP.
Magic_Salad0892
02-25-13, 04:52
Thanks for the info, Grant.
wild_wild_wes
02-25-13, 08:05
And yet, people single HK out for their hate. Meanwhile, Colt is keeping guns out of your hands.
And yet, people single HK out for their hate. Meanwhile, Colt is keeping guns out of your hands.
Pretty sure I bought a carbine from Colt?
As long as it's built right, I don't care what roll mark is on the side.
Good for FN, and Colt still gets paid. So everyone will be fine.
Precisely!
sinlessorrow
02-25-13, 08:58
Pretty sure I bought a carbine from Colt?
Yep, no idea what hes talking about.
And yet, people single HK out for their hate. Meanwhile, Colt is keeping guns out of your hands.
I think what some people who demonize Colt for safeguarding the M4 TDP so aggresively fail to realize is that the TDP for the M4 is like the secret recipe for Coca Cola. It's a trade secret, and when you go spreading it around to a bunch of different companies who all use it to make guns identical to yours you loose your competitive advantage in the market. You don't see Coke handing it's recipe to Pepsi or any other beverage company because it's what makes their product unique and valuable to the consumer. People buy a Colt over a Bushmaster for a reason, and Colt isn't going to let that advantage slip away from them anytime soon.
I think what some people who demonize Colt for safeguarding the M4 TDP so aggresively fail to realize is that the TDP for the M4 is like the secret recipe for Coca Cola. It's a trade secret, and when you go spreading it around to a bunch of different companies who all use it to make guns identical to yours you loose your competitive advantage in the market. You don't see Coke handing it's recipe to Pepsi or any other beverage company because it's what makes their product unique and valuable to the consumer. People buy a Colt over a Bushmaster for a reason, and Colt isn't going to let that advantage slip away from them anytime soon.
Well said!
sinlessorrow
02-25-13, 18:49
Colt lose contract because the high price.
FN sell M4 average $650 to army.
Colt sell 1911 average $5000 (yes, that is five grand) to USMC.
Wrong.... The M45 is closer to $1,800 per handgun which includes more than just the guns. Colt lost but not by much.
Colt lose contract because the high price.
FN sell M4 average $650 to army.
Colt sell 1911 average $5000 (yes, that is five grand) to USMC.
Front line personnel need a weapon that will get them out of the other end of whatever they are facing. What is stamped on the receiver doesn't matter, so long as the weapon works. A receiver can be stamped with a horse, a snake, an aardark or Elmer Fudd, it doesn't matter. A rifle is a tool, not a shrine.
Example: Colt made a lot of 1911 pistols. Mine had Singer stamped on the slide and it did not shoot any worse than the Colts.
Priority 1 is to provide our front line personnel with a reliable carbine. Priority 2 is to get the best bang for the buck for our tax dollar.
Don't forget what happened to the Tiger Shark fighter jet that Chuck Yeager said the military should buy at a considerable savings over the F-15. Politics prevailed and we paid a ton of money for the F-15, which was marginally better than the Tiger Shark.
sinlessorrow
02-25-13, 19:07
From this page
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/07/20/colt-awarded-contract-from-u-s-marine-corps/
22.5M for 4K pistols. Maybe they include 100 mags per pistol? j/k.
Thats not 22mil for 4,000. Its up to $22 million for up to 12,000 M45 handguns.
sinlessorrow
02-25-13, 19:31
Front line personnel need a weapon that will get them out of the other end of whatever they are facing. What is stamped on the receiver doesn't matter, so long as the weapon works. A receiver can be stamped with a horse, a snake, an aardark or Elmer Fudd, it doesn't matter. A rifle is a tool, not a shrine.
Example: Colt made a lot of 1911 pistols. Mine had Singer stamped on the slide and it did not shoot any worse than the Colts.
Priority 1 is to provide our front line personnel with a reliable carbine. Priority 2 is to get the best bang for the buck for our tax dollar.
Don't forget what happened to the Tiger Shark fighter jet that Chuck Yeager said the military should buy at a considerable savings over the F-15. Politics prevailed and we paid a ton of money for the F-15, which was marginally better than the Tiger Shark.
Excellent post. $650 per M4A1 with the RIS is a great price. I imagine when they select the new FF rail price will remain the same given the price of the RIS.
sinlessorrow
02-25-13, 19:55
I have no problem paying my tax dollar to our soldiers.
My problem is i do not believe a single stack 1911 can get our soldier out of the situation quickly enough.
Marines have been using 1911's for a long time but it was getting to much to keep up and these M45A1's are not hand fit 1911's thus making them easier to repair.
vereceleritas
02-25-13, 20:30
Are they allowed to use hammer forge barrels?
Anyone know the answer to this? I guess it depends on how specific the TDP is regarding the barrel. FN is well known for their hammer forged barrels. It would be a shame if they're couldn't use them on these M4's.
Charlie Don't Surf
02-25-13, 20:36
Don't forget what happened to the Tiger Shark fighter jet that Chuck Yeager said the military should buy at a considerable savings over the F-15. Politics prevailed and we paid a ton of money for the F-15, which was marginally better than the Tiger Shark.
Chuck Yeager was a badass and he did down a Me262 but he was wrong on this point. The F-15 is better in every quantifiable way over the Tiger Shark except price. The F-15 has a 108-0 kill ratio. No other fighter in history can claim this kind of record. The poor man's F-16 would not have fared as well.
sinlessorrow
02-25-13, 20:48
Anyone know the answer to this? I guess it depends on how specific the TDP is regarding the barrel. FN is well known for their hammer forged barrels. It would be a shame if they're couldn't use them on these M4's.
I know Gran mentioned Colt did a test between their Canadian barrels and theirs made here and found little to no difference.
Colt lose contract because the high price.
FN sell M4 average $650 to army.
Colt sell 1911 average $5000 (yes, that is five grand) to USMC.
That number includes a lot more than just the gun itself, you know.
That number includes a lot more than just the gun itself, you know.
As mentioned earlier, it's also not correct. It seems that a lot of people had trouble reading and understanding the various news stories on the M45 contract. The contract is for up to 12,000 pistols and has a potential value of $22.5 million. The actual price per unit is ~ $1875, and that includes manufacture, delivery, spare parts, and logistical support.
sinlessorrow
02-25-13, 22:53
As mentioned earlier, it's also not correct. It seems that a lot of people had trouble reading and understanding the various news stories on the M45 contract. The contract is for up to 12,000 pistols and has a potential value of $22.5 million. The actual price per unit is ~ $1875, and that includes manufacture, delivery, spare parts, and logistical support.
I think people just do not know how to read now days. $1875 is a good price for a 1911, especially when it comes with spare parts and logistical support. Combine that with the fact that it is a 1911 that does not require hand fitting.
I think what some people who demonize Colt for safeguarding the M4 TDP so aggresively fail to realize is that the TDP for the M4 is like the secret recipe for Coca Cola. It's a trade secret, and when you go spreading it around to a bunch of different companies who all use it to make guns identical to yours you loose your competitive advantage in the market. You don't see Coke handing it's recipe to Pepsi or any other beverage company because it's what makes their product unique and valuable to the consumer. People buy a Colt over a Bushmaster for a reason, and Colt isn't going to let that advantage slip away from them anytime soon.
I also think part of the issue is that DoD is still trying to wrap their collective heads around how to deal with weapon they don't outright and completely own the rights to, even 50+ years on.
When you consider just about every other previous issue weapon, .gov either developed the weapon themselves or purchased the rights outright (we'll ignore that whole 1903 thing where they essentially ripped off Mauser :o ).
They better figure it out because I dare say they'll never completely own the rights to any rifle again...
The Army is where they're supposed to be since they purchased a commercial item -- the people they buy from (Colt's) own the rights, blueprints, and intellectual property just the same as they buy from any other commercial source -- Dell, Caterpillar, Boeing, or whomever.
The Army negotiated licensing rights for contingencies when, like exactly right now, Colt's is maxed out for production (making M4s and lightweight M240s). If they weren't maxed out (and the government didn't need new weapons) everything would be hunky-dory and Colt exclusive. Uncle wants guns NOW and is exercising his negotiated contract option.
If Colt hadn't wanted that they could have said, "No, you'll get it when we can make them," I'm sure Uncle could have said, "I don't think so" -- but since he doesn't OWN the design and rights, it's free market.
Congress wanted the Army out of the weapons design and production business (closing Springfield Armory) and for the most part got what they legislated.
So is this a first for FN? (from today's contract announcements) :
FN Manufacturing L.L.C., Columbia, S.C., was awarded a firm-fixed-price contract with a maximum value of $76,922,574. The award will provide for the procurement of a maximum quantity of 120,000 M4/M4A1 Carbines and related requirements. Work location will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Feb. 19, 2018. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with six bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-13-D-0030).
Yes. Until today's notice, FNH-USA had produced the M16A2 and A4.
plumpsquirrel3
02-19-15, 02:57
I spotted the FN M4 in the wild. My unit just received some brand new ones. They had the KAC RAS, PEQ 15, ambi safety, H2 buffer, and Comp M4.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.