View Full Version : Remington wins M4 contract，Colt got screwed
Deadly hit
04-06-16, 05:54
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/04/05/breaking-remington-wins-m4-contract-review/
Remington Arms Co. has just won a major court victory against the United States Government, regarding a 212 million dollar contract given to FN and Colt for the procurement of M4 Carbines.
Back in September, Colt Defense, LLC, and Fabrique Nationale America were the lowest bidders on a solicitation for a 212 million dollar contract on 292,000 M4 Carbines for the US Army. Remington also bid, but it was not accepted.
Remington’s lawsuit focuses on the fact the Colt Defense, LLC was issued a contract despite being in bankruptcy proceedings at the time. The gunmaker’s representation argued that the government had not accounted for Colt’s most recent financial records, and that the decision to award a contract should be reviewed in light of these records. The court’s decision came down in favor of Remington, and Firestone’s opinion reinforces the need for additional financial records. Beyond that, the court also prevented the government from placing more orders with Colt Defense, LLC.
Beyond the suspension of orders for Colt being obviously very bad for that company, there is also the question of what will happen now. There is no guarantee that Colt’s contract will be reassigned, and if it is, the government is only obligated to give Remington a minimum order, and it seems likely that if Colt’s contract is reassigned, the rest of Colt’s order would simply be given to lower bidder FN, not Remington.
If true wait for the m16 to fall apart.
Freedom group will f up the guns
There is making money then there is freedom group
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Sounds like Remington is butthurt. They did all of this to f*** over Colt, and other than that, they will probably get nothing out of it. I guess it's a good day to be FN.
Colt is synonomus with the black rifle, but you cant help but think they were having mismanagement issues to be going thru a bankruptcy. Hopefully this makes Remington step up their game.
I feel like this thread is going to be sitting at the top of the forums for the next week or two. Hopefully we can keep it civil. Colt and Remington in the same thread is a recipe for some heated discussion.
My 2 cents. Without the contract Colt was going to be in really bad shape. Like it or not, the idea that they shielded their financial status was a bad idea and was bound to bite them at some point. I can't blame a competitor for going after them. I don't hate Remington like some, and am not a Colt diehard either. Both are capable of making a solid product. As a civilian, I appreciate the historical significance of Colt, but also appreciate Remington's devotion to the non-government market. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Remington is the John Kasich of the firearms world :rolleyes: Resting on prior laurels but currently weak and ineffectual, and only in it to screw the only other two viable manufacturers. Seriously hoping that remington and the freedom group die in a fire.
In my eyes, it was a low thing for Remington to do. I don't think it was any big secret that Colt was in bad shape, was it?
Maybe this contract was a way of saying...hey, we know you're having a hard time, but we know you have made quality fighting weapons for generations for our fighting men and women, and we're going to help you out now.
The sad part is, if Remington does actually end up with Colts share, and they don't step it up, it's our military men and women that get screwed.
Maybe this contract was a way of saying...hey, we know you're having a hard time, but we know you have made quality fighting weapons for generations for our fighting men and women, and we're going to help you out now.
Government bailouts are suddenly good now?
Why was Colt in such bad shape? We know they make a quality product, but wheres all there money? What happened to their company? I feel this should be deeper than Remington screwing them over. they were already screwed. Whats the deal?
Government bailouts are suddenly good now?
I didn't say it was good, I'm just throwing out one of many possibilities as to why Colt was given the contract in the 1st place.
BuzzinSATX
04-06-16, 09:17
Colt's poor business practices over the years brought this on themselves. Remington had a solid argument. Most companies in bankruptcy proceedings have a hard time winning gov contracts because they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they will be viable for the life of the contract...Colt should be treated no differently.
Then, there are those pesky "mil-specs" that Remington must meet when the deliver products. They can't send stuff that isn't QC'd and in spec, or their contract will be in jeopardy, so there are protections in place for our troops.
And while I keep hearing how 'Colts making the best firearms they've built in the last # years', that says to me that they had some serious quality issues in their flawed past.
I'm neither a Colt hater nor a Remington fanboy. Just a realist. Colt basically survived the "piss-poor-performance" years from their USGov contracts, and their innovation sucked.
By reliable accounts from this forum and elsewhere, I believe they are trying to turn things around, but odds are that Remington will likely produce an acceptable rifle for the troops, and if they don't, will suffer the consequences.
Take Care,
Buzz
Colt's poor business practices over the years brought this on themselves. Remington had a solid argument.
There are specs Remington must meet when the deliver products. They can't send stuff that isn't QC'd and in spec, or their contract will be in jeopardy, so there are protections in place for our troops.
And while I keep hearing how 'Colts making the best firearms they've built in the last # years', that says to me that they had some serious quality issues in their flawed past.
I'm neither a Colt hater nor a Remington fanboy. Just a realist. Colt basically survived the "piss-poor-performance" years from their USGov contracts, and their innovation sucked.
By reliable accounts from this forum and elsewhere, I believe they are trying to turn things around, but odds are that Remington will likely produce an acceptable rifle for the troops, and if they don't, will suffer the consequences.
Take Care,
Buzz
That's what I was getting at. All of it.
BuzzinSATX
04-06-16, 09:28
Full disclosure, I do not own any Colt or Remington firearms. But I do see a new Colt 1911 in my future when the budget permits, and if I were in the market for a stock starter AR, it would probably be one of the base Colts like the 6721. Nothing Remington makes really interests me, as I prefer Mossberg pump and Beretta SA shotguns and Savage/Tikka bolt guns.
Take Care,
Buzz
That's what I was getting at. All of it.
Same for me. Glad to see I'm not the objective outlier.
I agree that considering Colts financial circumstances, they probably shouldn't have been given the contract in the first place, but why did Remington feel the need to point that out? No doubt that Colt has their problems, but what does Remington gain from all of this other than trying to put the nail in Colts coffin? I doubt they'll get Colts share either way.
To me it looks like Remington is a kid who didn't get their way, b/c they didn't originally get picked, so now they want to ruin it for others by pointing out what was already well known.
Colt's poor business practices over the years brought this on themselves. Remington had a solid argument. Most companies in bankruptcy proceedings have a hard time winning gov contracts because they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they will be viable for the life of the contract...Colt should be treated no differently.
Then, there are those pesky "mil-specs" that Remington must meet when the deliver products. They can't send stuff that isn't QC'd and in spec, or their contract will be in jeopardy, so there are protections in place for our troops.
And while I keep hearing how 'Colts making the best firearms they've built in the last # years', that says to me that they had some serious quality issues in their flawed past.
I'm neither a Colt hater nor a Remington fanboy. Just a realist. Colt basically survived the "piss-poor-performance" years from their USGov contracts, and their innovation sucked.
By reliable accounts from this forum and elsewhere, I believe they are trying to turn things around, but odds are that Remington will likely produce an acceptable rifle for the troops, and if they don't, will suffer the consequences.
Take Care,
Buzz
Well said. Remington going after Colt in court is just part of doing business. If Remington starts to build carbines for the Military, the U.S. Government will hold their feet to the fire and make them deliver equipment that is build to specification.
I don't care what roll mark is on the side of a receiver, as long as our Troops get a quality firearm issued to them.
crusader377
04-06-16, 10:16
Not looking forward to Remington supplying combat rifles to the U.S. Military. Remington under the control of The Freedom Group has messed up too many firearms from their shotgun and rifle line to the R51 pistol and I simply don't have the confidence that Remington can build a rifle as good as Colt or FN.
Not looking forward to Remington supplying combat rifles to the U.S. Military. Remington under the control of The Freedom Group has messed up too many firearms from their shotgun and rifle line to the R51 pistol and I simply don't have the confidence that Remington can build a rifle as good as Colt or FN.
they cant spit out some BS that doesn't meet gov't standards...
Hilarious considering Remington lost the PSR contract IIRC because they cut costs and couldn't meet accuracy requirement after initial development.
I agree that considering Colts financial circumstances, they probably shouldn't have been given the contract in the first place, but why did Remington feel the need to point that out? No doubt that Colt has their problems, but what does Remington gain from all of this other than trying to put the nail in Colts coffin? I doubt they'll get Colts share either way.
To me it looks like Remington is a kid who didn't get their way, b/c they didn't originally get picked, so now they want to ruin it for others by pointing out what was already well known.
I think Remington went to court because they were not treated fairly in the bidding process. Assuming all 3 submitted quotes and product that met the DoD requirements so it came down to the 2 lowest bidders. One of those lowest bidders should not have even been allowed to bid based on their finances. I don't think this is a case of Remington being childish at all. Children whine when they loose fairly. People who are cheated out of something have every right to complain. It seems either the DoD ignored their own rules or Colt hid their finances efficiently enough to fool the DoD. Complaining about those isn't being butthurt. Remington, HK, FN... Are in business to make money for themselves and their stock holders, not for Colt.
Flankenstein
04-06-16, 12:03
I have a feeling Colt will be just fine. Just another road bump.
Singlestack Wonder
04-06-16, 12:04
they cant spit out some BS that doesn't meet gov't standards...
Sure they can. Freedom's other companies (dpms, bushmaster, etc.) have all been stating their equipment is "mil-spec" but have never been able to produce military grade firearms like Colt, FN, etc.
Sure they can. Freedom's other companies (dpms, bushmaster, etc.) have all been stating their equipment is "mil-spec" but have never been able to produce military grade firearms like Colt, FN, etc.
Let me shed light on my previous comment. They shouldnt be doing that. As a good business practice, they need to improve the quality so that they can have a solid reputation with that contract. They dove off into Colts financial status. If they can feel they need to knock them out, Remington neea to deliver a superior product at comparable pricing.
Primus Pilum
04-06-16, 13:41
Why was Colt in such bad shape? We know they make a quality product, but wheres all there money? What happened to their company? I feel this should be deeper than Remington screwing them over. they were already screwed. Whats the deal?
Years and Years of ownership and management raping the company for funding. Using the Prestige and "credit" of the Colt name to take out business loans then turn around and pay out the money as dividends. Colt has been a personal ATM and everyone else is left to pick up the pieces.
They really need to just sell the Name and Brand to someone with some ethics and long term vision to prevent them from going under. It's a shame, and would make a fantastic case study on how to snatch the defeat from the jaws of victory.
Primus Pilum
04-06-16, 13:44
I agree that considering Colts financial circumstances, they probably shouldn't have been given the contract in the first place, but why did Remington feel the need to point that out? No doubt that Colt has their problems, but what does Remington gain from all of this other than trying to put the nail in Colts coffin? I doubt they'll get Colts share either way.
To me it looks like Remington is a kid who didn't get their way, b/c they didn't originally get picked, so now they want to ruin it for others by pointing out what was already well known.
Hogwash. They have been in various stages of bankruptcy and financial turmoil for the last 30 years. This shit has been going on forever, yet they have always delivered outstanding products to the consumer and gov customer. Say what you will about their innovation, but they stuff they do make, has always been quality that surpassed it's price. This is just freedom group being the low class pieces of shit that they have always been.
Contractors fail to perform all the time. Remington could **** this up easily. Let me ask you, would you rather carry a DPMS or a Colt into harms way?
Primus Pilum
04-06-16, 13:46
they cant spit out some BS that doesn't meet gov't standards...
Yes they can, it is done all the time. Contract law and the FAR are complicated matters and those without extensive contracting/procurement experience have no idea what they are talking about.
Primus Pilum
04-06-16, 13:52
I think Remington went to court because they were not treated fairly in the bidding process. Assuming all 3 submitted quotes and product that met the DoD requirements so it came down to the 2 lowest bidders. One of those lowest bidders should not have even been allowed to bid based on their finances. I don't think this is a case of Remington being childish at all. Children whine when they loose fairly. People who are cheated out of something have every right to complain. It seems either the DoD ignored their own rules or Colt hid their finances efficiently enough to fool the DoD. Complaining about those isn't being butthurt. Remington, HK, FN... Are in business to make money for themselves and their stock holders, not for Colt.
Or perhaps that that is how business has always been conducted. Furthermore, Perhaps supporting the industry and keeping companies afloat who have strategic value is a good thing.
Anyone else think it was wise to destroy most of our shipbuilding capacity and rely on 2 or 3 shipyards for everything? Or one company having a monopoly on an industry who can strongarm the .gov.
Competition and capacity are both strategic resources that need to be maintained. Lets face it, the .Gov already picks winners and losers in every industry. What's so bad about ensuring that there are atleast 2-3 capable domestic producers of military small arms with proven track records. Want to see every future contract go strait to FN because Colt is dodo bird and Remington can't get their shit together? How much will products and services cost us then? What if the foreign owned HQ decides to go all EUROZONE and say F'uck the US? We just lost domestic capacity that could take years/decades to replace.
Nothing is black and white and the issues are more complicated than they look on the surface.
Hogwash. They have been in various stages of bankruptcy and financial turmoil for the last 30 years. This shit has been going on forever, yet they have always delivered outstanding products to the consumer and gov customer. Say what you will about their innovation, but they stuff they do make, has always been quality that surpassed it's price. This is just freedom group being the low class pieces of shit that they have always been.
Contractors fail to perform all the time. Remington could **** this up easily. Let me ask you, would you rather carry a DPMS or a Colt into harms way?
I don't know exactly what you're disagreeing with me about? Also, to answer your question, although I don't know why it was asked, I'd absolutely prefer to carry a Colt over a DPMS in harms way. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I carried when I was in harms way.
I've never once said or indicated that Colts products were anything but top notch. I own Colts myself. Just like you pointed out, I said it's never been a secret that Colt's had some financial trouble.
Remington could **** this up easily. Let me ask you, would you rather carry a DPMS or a Colt into harms way?
I own a DPMS, I vote Colt. Sure they could d!ck this up badly, but, for the sake of our troops, don't we hope they turn a good product?
I agree with the statements about Colts business practices. company should be sold, but they are probably trying to hold out so that the Freedom Group doesn't buy them. If that ever happens, I'll laugh my ars off.
Linebacker
04-06-16, 14:24
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/071315/why-colt-went-out-business.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/071315/why-colt-went-out-business.asp
So, it has been poor innovation, advertisement, and mismanagement. Remington sought to point that out, by saying "Why would you want to do business with someone who has a bad track record?"
Springfield
04-06-16, 14:42
To be up front, I do not own any Colt rifles and probably won't in the foreseeable future. With that said, I don't trust any model Remington has come out with in at least the last 20 years. It is possible that if Remington is held to the higher standards of government contracts, the quality of their domestic AR rifles could improve but we have been disappointed by them with such regularity lately I have my doubts.
Remington is a company that has been running only on it's name since being taken over by Freedom Group and if it were not for the old standbys like the M700, Model Seven, and 870, I would write them off completely. I am sure they are capable of building a serviceable rifle but worry that their goal will instead be to make they cheapest rifle they can that will just barely pass spec.
Linebacker
04-06-16, 14:43
So, it has been poor innovation, advertisement, and mismanagement. Remington sought to point that out, by saying "Why would you want to do business with someone who has a bad track record?"
Ha! Reality sucks sometimes. New England unionized labor doesn't help either. I would think Knight Armament and or Daniel Defense could replace Colt just fine.
sinlessorrow
04-06-16, 14:53
Colt's poor business practices over the years brought this on themselves. Remington had a solid argument. Most companies in bankruptcy proceedings have a hard time winning gov contracts because they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they will be viable for the life of the contract...Colt should be treated no differently.
Then, there are those pesky "mil-specs" that Remington must meet when the deliver products. They can't send stuff that isn't QC'd and in spec, or their contract will be in jeopardy, so there are protections in place for our troops.
And while I keep hearing how 'Colts making the best firearms they've built in the last # years', that says to me that they had some serious quality issues in their flawed past.
I'm neither a Colt hater nor a Remington fanboy. Just a realist. Colt basically survived the "piss-poor-performance" years from their USGov contracts, and their innovation sucked.
By reliable accounts from this forum and elsewhere, I believe they are trying to turn things around, but odds are that Remington will likely produce an acceptable rifle for the troops, and if they don't, will suffer the consequences.
Take Care,
Buzz
How well did that work for their PSR contract....Oh right, they only procured the bare minimum because Remington couldn't deliver on the performance of the test rifles.
So, it has been poor innovation, advertisement, and mismanagement. Remington sought to point that out, by saying "Why would you want to do business with someone who has a bad track record?"
Well I suppose Colt would say because our track record also shows that our AR's happen to be superior to Remingtons, and AR's are what you're looking for. I guess it's a double edged sword.
Well I suppose Colt would say because our track record also shows that our AR's happen to be superior to Remingtons, and AR's are what you're looking for. I guess it's a double edged sword.
Touche', quality product, poor quality business. Apparently they are looking for #'s not just quality. Hope that Remington does right by our soldiers?
Primus Pilum
04-06-16, 17:53
So, it has been poor innovation, advertisement, and mismanagement. Remington sought to point that out, by saying "Why would you want to do business with someone who has a bad track record?"
Except they have always had poor innovation, advertisement and missmanagement.......YET they always performed to contract and put out top notch products. A product that before BCM/LMT came along, was the only AR15 you could trust your life to, that you know was built to spec and QC'd.
Remington's point is BS. Colt has always performed well under their contracts. It's not their first rodeo.
would you rather carry a DPMS or a Colt into harms way?
A valid point, but a bit of a straw-man argument there. Odds are, Remington wasn't outbid peddling their DPMS line. My guess is it was either a XM-15 or ACR variant, likely the latter. From what I've seen, the ACR is not a cheap build and seems to have some quality behind it. Same goes for the XM-15. If they brought a DPMS to the rodeo, and priced themselves out of it with that product, they may have more issues with their executive leadership than Colt. I think Remington sometimes get knocked because they choose to cater a portion of their business to the entry level civilian market. There's nothing wrong with that. But for that reason they get cast aside by the purists who love the Colt legacy. If I recall, Blackwater chose to issue Bushmaster rifles to their contractors. And they could have chose any brand out there. As far as I know they weren't tied down to a government contract. I'm sure there were a lot of elements at play in their decision; some likely financial. But the fact that they felt confident selecting Bushmaster can't be completely dismissed. I also don't recall hearing stories about their Contractors losing their lives left and right due to failing weapons. They seem to have served them just fine.
BuzzinSATX
04-06-16, 19:48
How well did that work for their PSR contract....Oh right, they only procured the bare minimum because Remington couldn't deliver on the performance of the test rifles.
Guess if that happens, Remington will lose sales. I don't have a dog in this fight. As long as our troops, many of whom are friends of mine, still get quality firearms, I'll be happy. I don't give a dang if it's a Remington or a Colt (or an FN, or a DD).
cougar_guy04
04-06-16, 19:49
Colt's poor business practices over the years brought this on themselves. Remington had a solid argument. Most companies in bankruptcy proceedings have a hard time winning gov contracts because they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they will be viable for the life of the contract...Colt should be treated no differently.
Then, there are those pesky "mil-specs" that Remington must meet when the deliver products. They can't send stuff that isn't QC'd and in spec, or their contract will be in jeopardy, so there are protections in place for our troops.
And while I keep hearing how 'Colts making the best firearms they've built in the last # years', that says to me that they had some serious quality issues in their flawed past.
I'm neither a Colt hater nor a Remington fanboy. Just a realist. Colt basically survived the "piss-poor-performance" years from their USGov contracts, and their innovation sucked.
By reliable accounts from this forum and elsewhere, I believe they are trying to turn things around, but odds are that Remington will likely produce an acceptable rifle for the troops, and if they don't, will suffer the consequences.
Take Care,
Buzz
Not to quote the same post over and over, but I'm in the same camp. It seems like contract protests are almost as much a part of the process as actually submitting proposals whether it's a rifle or a tanker aircraft. *shrugs*
Queue all of the "This will not stand" and "legal challenge" comments.
I wonder how many triggers these rifles will go through before they don't shoot by themselves?
:)
TraderJack
04-06-16, 20:34
Well, I did my part to remain loyal to the Colt brand... I picked up a LE6920 yesterday. When I got it home and had a chance to do some serious 'fondling', everything felt 'just right'. I can't wait for this blasted weather to clear so I can give it a serious range eval. Report to follow.
TacMedic556
04-06-16, 21:03
That's fine for them, cheap bastards. I would not buy a Remington AR. Glad there are companies like BCM, Daniel Defense, Centurion, Noveske, LMT and KAC there to fill the gap.
peashooter76
04-06-16, 21:15
Hope this doesnt delay the Colt mid-length release
A valid point, but a bit of a straw-man argument there. Odds are, Remington wasn't outbid peddling their DPMS line. My guess is it was either a XM-15 or ACR variant, likely the latter. From what I've seen, the ACR is not a cheap build and seems to have some quality behind it. Same goes for the XM-15. If they brought a DPMS to the rodeo, and priced themselves out of it with that product, they may have more issues with their executive leadership than Colt. I think Remington sometimes get knocked because they choose to cater a portion of their business to the entry level civilian market. There's nothing wrong with that. But for that reason they get cast aside by the purists who love the Colt legacy. If I recall, Blackwater chose to issue Bushmaster rifles to their contractors. And they could have chose any brand out there. As far as I know they weren't tied down to a government contract. I'm sure there were a lot of elements at play in their decision; some likely financial. But the fact that they felt confident selecting Bushmaster can't be completely dismissed. I also don't recall hearing stories about their Contractors losing their lives left and right due to failing weapons. They seem to have served them just fine.
There actually happens to be a member on here that I am almost positive serviced the weapons of contractors who were using Bushmaster and has remarked their extremely poor quality and problems over in the box.
I think Remington went to court because they were not treated fairly in the bidding process. Assuming all 3 submitted quotes and product that met the DoD requirements so it came down to the 2 lowest bidders. One of those lowest bidders should not have even been allowed to bid based on their finances. I don't think this is a case of Remington being childish at all. Children whine when they loose fairly. People who are cheated out of something have every right to complain. It seems either the DoD ignored their own rules or Colt hid their finances efficiently enough to fool the DoD. Complaining about those isn't being butthurt. Remington, HK, FN... Are in business to make money for themselves and their stock holders, not for Colt.
I speculate this may be the case. Remington felt it was unfair that they did not obtain/win the contract due to the reasons already stated.
I don't know the exact particulars of weapons procurement and bidding, but even if Colt is in bankruptcy (or close to bankruptcy) and won the contract, wouldn't that new contract help them get back on their feet anyway? Plus, its good to keep a company around that has a long track record and service history. Their financial/company mismanagement aside, they still make great products. Not being a fanboy or loyalist here, but I doubt I would be comfortable having soldiers carry a Remington M4 into service...at least not yet.
A valid point, but a bit of a straw-man argument there. Odds are, Remington wasn't outbid peddling their DPMS line. My guess is it was either a XM-15 or ACR variant, likely the latter. From what I've seen, the ACR is not a cheap build and seems to have some quality behind it. Same goes for the XM-15. If they brought a DPMS to the rodeo, and priced themselves out of it with that product, they may have more issues with their executive leadership than Colt. I think Remington sometimes get knocked because they choose to cater a portion of their business to the entry level civilian market. There's nothing wrong with that. But for that reason they get cast aside by the purists who love the Colt legacy. If I recall, Blackwater chose to issue Bushmaster rifles to their contractors. And they could have chose any brand out there. As far as I know they weren't tied down to a government contract. I'm sure there were a lot of elements at play in their decision; some likely financial. But the fact that they felt confident selecting Bushmaster can't be completely dismissed. I also don't recall hearing stories about their Contractors losing their lives left and right due to failing weapons. They seem to have served them just fine.
Private contractors are a very small minority compared to the entire Military and hardly matters when it comes to weapons selection, whether they carry a Bushmaster, Colt, or LMT. Many could care less if these contractors carried a DPMS on duty and said it never malfunctioned and it is better than other milspec toptier brands (BCM, DD, etc).
MountainRaven
04-06-16, 23:13
Queue all of the "This will not stand" and "legal challenge" comments.
I wonder how many triggers these rifles will go through before they don't shoot by themselves?
:)
Happily, Remington didn't design the FCG of the AR-15 and I don't think they're about to start redesigning them for a military contract that doesn't call for it.
Well, there go my hopes of Colt eventually getting back to doing Pythons and Anacondas. Colt may not be managed brilliantly, but they have been getting better in terms of the commercial side of things (the 901 in its various configurations for example) and they do make quality guns.
Freedom Group, on the other hand, not so much.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/04/05/breaking-remington-wins-m4-contract-review/
Remington Arms Co. has just won a major court victory against the United States Government, regarding a 212 million dollar contract given to FN and Colt for the procurement of M4 Carbines.
Back in September, Colt Defense, LLC, and Fabrique Nationale America were the lowest bidders on a solicitation for a 212 million dollar contract on 292,000 M4 Carbines for the US Army. Remington also bid, but it was not accepted.
Remington’s lawsuit focuses on the fact the Colt Defense, LLC was issued a contract despite being in bankruptcy proceedings at the time. The gunmaker’s representation argued that the government had not accounted for Colt’s most recent financial records, and that the decision to award a contract should be reviewed in light of these records. The court’s decision came down in favor of Remington, and Firestone’s opinion reinforces the need for additional financial records. Beyond that, the court also prevented the government from placing more orders with Colt Defense, LLC.
Beyond the suspension of orders for Colt being obviously very bad for that company, there is also the question of what will happen now. There is no guarantee that Colt’s contract will be reassigned, and if it is, the government is only obligated to give Remington a minimum order, and it seems likely that if Colt’s contract is reassigned, the rest of Colt’s order would simply be given to lower bidder FN, not Remington.
Colt will be forced to recognize the civilian, or die. That's basically what's been written on the wall in bold flaming letters for the past few years...
Colt should have never put themselves into this situation, especially considering American's last few years of gun buying habits.
BuzzinSATX
04-07-16, 06:20
Colt should have never put themselves into this situation, especially considering American's last few years of gun buying habits.
This!!!!!
How many times have you heard about how the American public has been on a gun buying spree ever since BHO got into office? And other than try and sell some 6920's at Walmart, how has Colt jumped on that bandwagon?
So basically what we are saying is that because it's Colt and we like them bending/breaking or ignoring rules is OK. I'd give some credence to the idea of strategic protection of mfg if Colt was on a short list of makers. The fact is that there are plenty of gun makers still alive in the USA that can be used to make guns in case of the apocalypse.
Remington/Freedom can make true Mil-Spec guns. They just choose not to in the commercial lines simply because 99.973% of the civilian population doesn't need it, know it or want to pay for it. Face it WE are in a minority (understatement).
If Remington did not supply a weapon that met the technical requirements and offer up sufficient QC assurances that the quality of the test guns = production then this will be the shortest law suit ever. All DOD has to do is point out the shortcomings of the Remington offering and they historic lack of QC and tell the court they defaulted to the next bidder because of that. Court will say OK DoD - Remington go **** yourself. Although in more PC terms.
Neither Colt, FN, Remington or any other company does right by our troops. The DOD needs to do right by our troops. Leaders in that organization need to step up to the plate and insure that the equipment they buy meets their required standards. That doesn't mean relying of the seller to vouch for their product. These items are life and death items that means a thorough incoming QC done by the DoD. Even in my neck of the woods where the worst thing that happens if my products to down you lose your lorn stream we do hard core incoming QC on mission critical parts. We have done things like purchasing thousands of parts out of different lots of RM different mfg dates and shifts get incoming QC at high sampling levels before products are even allowed near the production floor. Once we deem the supplier acceptable they still go through constant incoming sampling.
Not familiar with DoD practices but if they don't do that level of QC then THEY are not doing right by our troops and have no valid reason to expect others to do so.
asked my dealer pal about this and he said is colts fault they are like this.
The ****ed up thing about Colt. They are holding dealers hostage. I can't even order colt branded magazines unless I do their 10k a year stocking dealer program. **** Colt
If this helps Colt finally go bankrupt hopefully it will allow them to finally dump the Union workers.
Workers make a company, if they are greedy the company will fail. The employe's of Colt brought this upon themselves through their Union. If the Union is not willing to make concessions to make Colt profitable, I would like to see Colt fold, the Unions get nothing.
Colts name and intelectual property can be resurrected in a gun friendly right to work state.
Colts Union and its employee's could have learned a lot from Detroit and the Union Auto Workers. Some people don't learn so they deserve to fail to make room for some one else to succeed.
Colts not going anywhere.
If this helps Colt finally go bankrupt hopefully it will allow them to finally dump the Union workers.
Workers make a company, if they are greedy the company will fail. The employe's of Colt brought this upon themselves through their Union. If the Union is not willing to make concessions to make Colt profitable, I would like to see Colt fold, the Unions get nothing.
Colts name and intelectual property can be resurrected in a gun friendly right to work state.
Colts Union and its employee's could have learned a lot from Detroit and the Union Auto Workers. Some people don't learn so they deserve to fail to make room for some one else to succeed.
Colts not going anywhere.
Colt is out of bankruptcy and actually doing well. IMHO, the M4 contract will not kill Colt in any way and is actually a good thing. The profit margins on that contract were nonexistent and now Remington has to pay Colt Royalty fees for every M4 they build. Colt's commercial and international sales are going very well.
So to be clear, this court ruling is actually a positive for Colt and the commercial market.
C4
First question, didn't Remington win this contract in the first place then Colt protested and won the protest but FN won the contract and then Colt was given a part of it? I hate to see it go this way because... Freedom Group, but you can't really say that Remington is acting shitty by protesting.
Second question, does Colt make all their rifles to Mil-Spec because they want to or do they do it because it's easier and cheaper to just make everything the same way? Would losing this contract open the opportunity for them to start cutting costs/quality? I guess they probably don't have any contract requiring them to individually magnetic particle test and high pressure test 6720 and 6721 barrels but they still do so maybe that answers my question.
Second question, does Colt make all their rifles to Mil-Spec because they want to or do they do it because it's easier and cheaper to just make everything the same way? Would losing this contract open the opportunity for them to start cutting costs/quality? I guess they probably don't have any contract requiring them to individually magnetic particle test and high pressure test 6720 and 6721 barrels but they still do so maybe that answers my question.
Colt wrote the TDP. It is the only way they know how to make the gun. Colt has some other M4 contracts (along with the M240, M240L). So no, they won't be cutting corners.
C4
The Expanse leads me to think its not the only way they know, but the other contracts are reassuring.
The Expanse leads me to think its not the only way they know, but the other contracts are reassuring.
The Expanse is pretty much a 6920. Their Mid-Length AR is also just a deviation of the TDP. I think there is a difference between cheapening a product with a set standard and CHOOSING to offer something different.
C4
BuzzinSATX
04-07-16, 12:30
Colt is out of bankruptcy and actually doing well. IMHO, the M4 contract will not kill Colt in any way and is actually a good thing. The profit margins on that contract were nonexistent and now Remington has to pay Colt Royalty fees for every M4 they build. Colt's commercial and international sales are going very well.
So to be clear, this court ruling is actually a positive for Colt and the commercial market.
C4
Thanks much, Grant, for this current insight. I'm glad for Colt and wish them the best going forward.
From Colt and Remington to BCM and DD to Ruger and S&W, et al, having financially secure ammo and firearms companies helps support the organizations who support our 2A rights.
Primus Pilum
04-07-16, 12:35
Colt will be forced to recognize the civilian, or die. That's basically what's been written on the wall in bold flaming letters for the past few years...
"Colt" has been putting out awesome products for the civilian side for over a decade. This old wives tale needs to die.
They are completely saddled with debt payments from ownership raping the company of capital for years, so they cannot just expand production because they don't have the cash to do so. All of their "profit" goes right to service debt from corporate criminals who used to run the show. Because of this financial situation, no one is going to lend them the money to expand when they have to fight for money to stay affloat.
Its a tough situation, and being stuck in commy CT does not make it any better.
Primus Pilum
04-07-16, 12:37
Colt should have never put themselves into this situation, especially considering American's last few years of gun buying habits.
Which means nothing as the ownership changes every so many years and previous owners have burdened the current company. Those who are there now have little to nothing to do with the situation they are in.
People need to educate themselves on a subject before they preach like its gospel.
Primus Pilum
04-07-16, 12:39
If this helps Colt finally go bankrupt hopefully it will allow them to finally dump the Union workers.
Workers make a company, if they are greedy the company will fail. The employe's of Colt brought this upon themselves through their Union. If the Union is not willing to make concessions to make Colt profitable, I would like to see Colt fold, the Unions get nothing.
Colts name and intelectual property can be resurrected in a gun friendly right to work state.
Colts Union and its employee's could have learned a lot from Detroit and the Union Auto Workers. Some people don't learn so they deserve to fail to make room for some one else to succeed.
Colts not going anywhere.
Wrong again. The union had little to do with why they are where they are. In fact, show me ANY comparable rifle to a 6920 or 6720 for $800 like grant sells. BCM and LMT must have the greediest unions on their payroll to charge 50% more for essentialy the same quality product. Amazingly Colt is selling rifles for what a Bushmaster or other garbage AR goes for. They sure are sticking it to the customer.........
Well, I did my part to remain loyal to the Colt brand... I picked up a LE6920 yesterday. When I got it home and had a chance to do some serious 'fondling', everything felt 'just right'. I can't wait for this blasted weather to clear so I can give it a serious range eval. Report to follow.
Funny you say that, But the day my dpms came in, it was a down pour, and I didn't hesitate to take it to the range..
I say that In jest, as in quick jerkin around and go shoot it!
Wrong again. The union had little to do with why they are where they are. In fact, show me ANY comparable rifle to a 6920 or 6720 for $800 like grant sells. BCM and LMT must have the greediest unions on their payroll to charge 50% more for essentialy the same quality product. Amazingly Colt is selling rifles for what a Bushmaster or other garbage AR goes for. They sure are sticking it to the customer.........
"Colt" has been putting out awesome products for the civilian side for over a decade. This old wives tale needs to die.
They are completely saddled with debt payments from ownership raping the company of capital for years, so they cannot just expand production because they don't have the cash to do so. All of their "profit" goes right to service debt from corporate criminals who used to run the show. Because of this financial situation, no one is going to lend them the money to expand when they have to fight for money to stay affloat.
Its a tough situation, and being stuck in commy CT does not make it any better.
A side of the coin I was less familiar with. Seems every one was getting greedy.
I agree Colt now has the right price on their products, and have started putting out more contemporary to the market products. I'll also give them credit for selling less neutered guns, with the days of different pin sizes and sear blocks gone. Their receivers do still have material left in the sear shelf. I don't have a RDIAS so I don't care, but its still lame and unnecessary.
I have a 6720, just to have a Colt. But there is so much great stuff available today I just don't see myself ever buying another Colt Carbine.
A side of the coin I was less familiar with. Seems every one was getting greedy.
I agree Colt now has the right price on their products, and have started putting out more contemporary to the market products. I'll also give them credit for selling less neutered guns, with the days of different pin sizes and sear blocks gone. Their receivers do still have material left in the sear shelf. I don't have a RDIAS so I don't care, but its still lame and unnecessary.
I have a 6720, just to have a Colt. But there is so much great stuff available today I just don't see myself ever buying another Colt Carbine.
Wait till their middy comes out. ;-)
C4
leibermuster
04-07-16, 13:54
I love Colt Products, especially there 6933 and MK18, wish they released more of these.
Wrong again. The union had little to do with why they are where they are. In fact, show me ANY comparable rifle to a 6920 or 6720 for $800 like grant sells. BCM and LMT must have the greediest unions on their payroll to charge 50% more for essentialy the same quality product. Amazingly Colt is selling rifles for what a Bushmaster or other garbage AR goes for. They sure are sticking it to the customer.........
BCM charges 50% more for the same?
I'm not sure how Remington can **** it up that badly. They are just building a pre determined rifle (Colt) anyway. No innovation to worry about, they have all the specs and testing procedures dictated to them.
I've said it before while not responsible for all their woes, Colt really dicked the dog by not making their parts and components (everything from barreled uppers to springs) available in an easy fashion for years and years. It was always second hand parties like SAW or Dennis Todd that you had to pay a mark up from or track down to get your hands on them.
First rate Colt dealers never had that shit in stock nor did their website (until relatively recently)
They basically birthed one of their biggest competitors in that market when Paul Buffoni looked into providing people with high quality parts from his garage.
Wait till their middy comes out. ;-)
C4
Do you still expect these to be in the $1500 range? Even with the ambi lower?
ColtSeavers
04-07-16, 15:42
Wait till their middy comes out. ;-)
C4
I don't understand this sentiment today. 10 years ago maybe, but not today. Not meant as a rip against Colt either.
Do you still expect these to be in the $1500 range? Even with the ambi lower?
Less. They are going with the standard (non-ambi) Lower I believe.
C4
BCM charges 50% more for the same?
as far as complete rifles. a bcm rifle comparable to a 6920 (16" barrel, carbine gas) is about $375 more, but you get the mod 0 comp, bcm charging handle, pistol grip, handguard, and buttstock, and pnt trigger.
buying the upper and lower separate is about $972 total
Primus Pilum
04-07-16, 18:15
as far as complete rifles. a bcm rifle comparable to a 6920 (16" barrel, carbine gas) is about $375 more, but you get the mod 0 comp, bcm charging handle, pistol grip, handguard, and buttstock, and pnt trigger.
buying the upper and lower separate is about $972 total
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=M4-650-111
Looks like A2 FH, Carbine HG's, ect
VS.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=6720
Personally I'll take the lighter barrel, BUIS and better handling gun for less money. BCM grips suck ass anyway so it would get replaced with a MOE+.
Less. They are going with the standard (non-ambi) Lower I believe.
C4
Interesting. Will the ambi lower be an option?
peashooter76
04-07-16, 19:55
Grant, do you have an idea as to when you'll have the colt middy available for sale?
Wrong again. The union had little to do with why they are where they are. In fact, show me ANY comparable rifle to a 6920 or 6720 for $800 like grant sells. BCM and LMT must have the greediest unions on their payroll to charge 50% more for essentialy the same quality product. Amazingly Colt is selling rifles for what a Bushmaster or other garbage AR goes for. They sure are sticking it to the customer.........
That's looking at it from outside the company (Colt). From the inside, they may not be charging enough for their products, not making enough profit on them, or mismanaging what profits they make. Unions can and often do directly affect points 2 and 3.
Joe Mamma
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=M4-650-111
Looks like A2 FH, Carbine HG's, ect
VS.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=6720
Personally I'll take the lighter barrel, BUIS and better handling gun for less money. BCM grips suck ass anyway so it would get replaced with a MOE+.
I was looking at BCM's site
OOS at the moment
http://shop.bravocompanymfg.com/Bravo-Company-MFG-BCM-M4-Mod-0-AR15-Carbine-p/bcm-carbine-650-111.htm
Buying a BCM upper and lower separate is still a better choice, IMO
cougar_guy04
04-07-16, 20:16
A valid point, but a bit of a straw-man argument there. Odds are, Remington wasn't outbid peddling their DPMS line. My guess is it was either a XM-15 or ACR variant, likely the latter. From what I've seen, the ACR is not a cheap build and seems to have some quality behind it. Same goes for the XM-15. If they brought a DPMS to the rodeo, and priced themselves out of it with that product, they may have more issues with their executive leadership than Colt.
Remington was submitting for the M4 contract, not M4 Replacement (M4E1, Improved Carbine, whatever the term du jour for a new rifle competition is). They didn't submit an off-the-rack AP4, Patrolman's Carbine, or an ACR. They submitted a proposal to build the M4 to the M4 TDP. Same gun FN and Colt submitted for, different roll-mark on the lower & barrel.
Find ManBearPig!
04-07-16, 21:12
Alright, forgive me for asking this, as I am not extremely familiar with military procurement, but how much pressure is there exactly for Remington to get this right? As in, if they screw this up and end up building sub-par M4's, how likely is it that Uncle Sam will be coming after them?
Interesting. Will the ambi lower be an option?
No.
C4
Grant, do you have an idea as to when you'll have the colt middy available for sale?
We do not. We should see them at the NRA Show in May.
C4
All this talk of the Colt middy, and I'm just frustrated they won't sell us the Colt Canada version with the better barrel, MLOK Colt rail, and all the other actually good stuff.
What are we getting?
A button-rifled barrel with a gas-port drilled a few inches further from the chamber and an aftermarket rail from another company that's been out for how long? It's a great rail, sure, but the only innovation that took place was the drill press operator using a different drill and chucking the barrel up in a different location, figuratively speaking. Literally EVERYTHING else about the rifle is circa 1995? Or did it get some Magpul grip/stock, lol
So much fail. So much. 2005 is calling.
Just buy a Daniel Defense. You can have KM, 1913, or MLOK, a CHF barrel, and a company that is actually solvent to back the product.
All this talk of the Colt middy, and I'm just frustrated they won't sell us the Colt Canada version with the better barrel, MLOK Colt rail, and all the other actually good stuff.
What are we getting?
A button-rifled barrel with a gas-port drilled a few inches further from the chamber and an aftermarket rail from another company that's been out for how long? It's a great rail, sure, but the only innovation that took place was the drill press operator using a different drill and chucking the barrel up in a different location, figuratively speaking.
So much fail. So much. 2005 is calling.
Just buy a Daniel Defense. You can have KM, 1913, or MLOK, a CHF barrel, and a company that is actually solvent to back the product.
The inability to get the Colt Canada MRR has more to do with import rules than anything else.
The inability to get the Colt Canada MRR has more to do with import rules than anything else.
...and the inability to innovate in America is due to...?
All this talk of the Colt middy, and I'm just frustrated they won't sell us the Colt Canada version with the better barrel, MLOK Colt rail, and all the other actually good stuff.
What are we getting?
A button-rifled barrel with a gas-port drilled a few inches further from the chamber and an aftermarket rail from another company that's been out for how long? It's a great rail, sure, but the only innovation that took place was the drill press operator using a different drill and chucking the barrel up in a different location, figuratively speaking. Literally EVERYTHING else about the rifle is circa 1995? Or did it get some Magpul grip/stock, lol
So much fail. So much. 2005 is calling.
Just buy a Daniel Defense. You can have KM, 1913, or MLOK, a CHF barrel, and a company that is actually solvent to back the product.
I completely agree.
I want the Colt Canada MLOK.
...and the inability to innovate in America is due to...?
I think Colt makes good products. However, they are not very well run it seems, and they do struggle with the union. I still can't believe it has taken saw long to come out with a Middy. I almost didn't buy my LE6920, but I am glad I did. It shoots great. I was going to get a BCM Middy instead.
All this talk of the Colt middy, and I'm just frustrated they won't sell us the Colt Canada version with the better barrel, MLOK Colt rail, and all the other actually good stuff.
What are we getting?
A button-rifled barrel with a gas-port drilled a few inches further from the chamber and an aftermarket rail from another company that's been out for how long? It's a great rail, sure, but the only innovation that took place was the drill press operator using a different drill and chucking the barrel up in a different location, figuratively speaking. Literally EVERYTHING else about the rifle is circa 1995? Or did it get some Magpul grip/stock, lol
So much fail. So much. 2005 is calling.
Just buy a Daniel Defense. You can have KM, 1913, or MLOK, a CHF barrel, and a company that is actually solvent to back the product.
Colt CA and Colt US are two entirely different companies. In for for Colt US to get Colt CA products, they would have to buy them. This means that the consumer would pay a lot more for things.
All things in time. Colt has had no R&D budget as all their profit was going to the hedge fund company that was bleeding them dry. They have already started a major overhaul of the 1911's and this mid-length AR represents a shift in the mindset that everyone wants a carbine length gas system. Point being, things are improving at Colt.
The DD AR is much more money than the Colt. As far as finances go, Colt is in the BEST position they have been in a very long time with a strong management team. We understand that your not a Colt fan, but at least know the facts about what you are saying.
C4
I wonder if Colt could survive if they could not manufacture AR's for the civilian market ? When i think of Colt these days, I just think of AR's and 1911's and most people seem to be going with a hi-cap 9mm for a pistol.
I wonder if Colt could survive if they could not manufacture AR's for the civilian market ? When i think of Colt these days, I just think of AR's and 1911's and most people seem to be going with a hi-cap 9mm for a pistol.
At this point, I don't think they could.
As a dealer that stocks their 1911's, they sell well.
C4
People always parrot the CHF and middy. It's right up there with fit and finish. Pretty much useless to what really counts.
People always parrot the CHF and middy. It's right up there with fit and finish. Pretty much useless to what really counts.
True. Colt US tested their barrels against the Colt CA barrels. They found ZERO difference in performance.
C4
People always parrot the CHF and middy. It's right up there with fit and finish. Pretty much useless to what really counts.
IMHO, and as a middy gas system fan, in a correctly ported *semi-auto* carbine where heat has less of an effect on bolt and barrel life, I agree.
crusader377
04-08-16, 12:42
I wonder if Colt could survive if they could not manufacture AR's for the civilian market ? When i think of Colt these days, I just think of AR's and 1911's and most people seem to be going with a hi-cap 9mm for a pistol.
Could you not say that about the bulk of firearms manufacturers. Truth be known most firearms manufacturers have a core product line that accounts for the bulk of their sales whether it is tactical rifles, sporting rifles, pistols, revolvers, etc.... Glock for example just sells polymer pistols and they are very good at it. HK makes great weapons but they probably wouldn't be in business if they didn't have a strong presence in the military market.
The US Army put out an M4 contract bid. When the government does this for such a potentially big award they send out the Technical Data Package and mil-specs so that the bidders understand what the government is looking for, and the understanding that if you can't deliver your contract can and will be cancelled.
Remington won. Colt pitched a huge fit to the government with the result the contract was cancelled and let again. FN won the second round. Ironically, Colt's was occupied building lightweight FN M-240 machineguns.
For the next round (the one mentioned in original post), the government awarded Colt the latest contract even though they are, or were, in bankruptcy protection.
Primus Pilum
04-08-16, 13:26
Colt has been in bankruptcy protection for how many years over the last 2 decades? Every few years they are on the brink of not being able to service debt payments.......and they get another bridge loan.
Hasn't stopped them from winning in the past. Like Grant said, they are in better mgmt shape now then they have ever been.
I have no problem with DOD sharing the love and keeping a strong military industry base. We don't need to move to the Navy or AF model where 1 or 2 firms own the industry. Competition and capacity (along with spreading out strategic locations) is a good thing. Pisses me off that we are stuck with 2 shitty plane manufactures and 2 shitty ship builders who are also tied together. We piss away hundreds of billions a year in waste due to the way we conduct business. We need competition to drive to down costs and force innovation. Defense should not follow capitalistic market forces. You end up with a few firms controlling everything. Share the love.
Remington won. Colt pitched a huge fit to the government with the result the contract was cancelled and let again. FN won the second round.
Interesting. I guess I'll take your word for it, and pose a follow-up question. So, given your knowledge of the actual events at hand, do you feel the government was wrong for selecting Remington? Meaning, do you think they ignored the potential for a sub-standard product. Or, was it of little concern that Remington could deliver exactly what the Army was needing?
Either way, seems like Colt was the one to start all the whining, and Remington was the one getting screwed. That's gotta sting for Colt. Get beat straight up and then beat again at their own backdoor game. If what you say is true, I'd fault Remington even less now for going down the litigation road. I'm pretty sure all of us would do the same in our business dealings, if an honest win was snatched from one's arms because a loser in the mix didn't get their way. You don't just pack up and go home. Especially when the stakes are this high.
I have never been an acquisition or procurement officer. I have seen things go shitty for Uncle Sam, and occasionally go right and well. Uncle usually gets what he specs and asks for. Sometimes that means the government user gets the shaft.
Rarely does it mean a vendor loses money -- but when it goes sideways, Uncle hates to be cheated. There are a number of vendors who have been permanently banned from doing business with ANY United States Government entity, in perpetuity, due to fraud (Dragonskin Armor being one, and I'm surprised EOTech hasn't been banned).
FWIW: The court's recent ruling did not result in a Remington contract award, nor did Colt lose its existing contract. Rather, the Army has been ordered to revise Colt's responsibility determination based upon Colt's updated financial status, and then report back to the court by April 25th. Until the revised responsibility determination is submitted to the court, the Army is not allowed to add any additional delivery orders to Colt's existing contract.
In a responsibility determination, the contracting official establishes that the contractor has the means and ability to complete their contract.
Nothing is going to change; if Colt is out of bankruptcy, the contract will stay with both FN and Colt. End of story.
I own most every major AR manufacture, from Colt, FNMI (20" barrel and A2 upper), LMT, LWRC, BCM, Noveske, and Daniel Defense. All are VERY good, but my fall back is Colt. I have two complete Colt rifles, four complete uppers I built using exclusively Colt parts, and also carry a Colt M-4 for work. They might not be the prettiest, but they work and function great. The only other BCG I like better than Colt is LMT's
BTW: not a middy fan, sold the BCM's and RRA middies I owned because I didn't see much difference in recoil. However, I will give the Colt a chance just because I am a fan of Colt
All very nice -- but Uncle Sam cares not one iota what you personally prefer to put your money into when he lets contracts within the law and both Federal and Defense Acquisition Regulations.
Colt will never be out of the game. It's a temporary setback. Remington will have to step up to the plate or they will be out. This will make or break the Remington reputation. If they blow it, they will look bad for many years to come. How many folks remember GM Hydromatic M-16's? Even Bushmaster got a small contract in the 1980's. The ball is in Remington's court now. Woe be it on them if they fumble it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.