PDA

View Full Version : Colt's M4 contract expires. Army now has rights to M4.



Cameron
07-07-09, 22:13
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/07/army_carbine_070609w/ (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/07/army_carbine_070609w/)

Army acquires rights to M4

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Jul 7, 2009 20:59:55 EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colt officials didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.

Some in the small-arms industry say Colt’s 15-year control over the M4 is a natural part of the gun-making business.

“If a company designs and develops a product, they don’t do that for fun; they have a whole factory of people to feed,” said George Kontis, who is now the vice president of business development for Knights Armament Company but has worked for multiple small-arms firms since 1967.

“This is not anything new in history. It has always happened this way,” he said.

The next competition

For now, the Army is planning to begin a competition in October that could produce a new carbine by sometime in 2012, but there are no guarantees, weapons officials maintain.

Before that can happen, the Army’s updated carbine requirement — the document that lays out what the service wants in the future weapon — still has to clear the senior Army leadership and win joint approval, he said.

Funding is another uncertainty, he said. The Army can’t begin the request for proposal process this year if the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill doesn’t include the start-up costs for the venture, Tamilio said.

“I don’t need a lot of money,” Tamilio said. “I think it’s less than $10 million for fiscal year 2010. ... It’s obviously tied into the president’s budget in 2010.”

Colt still owns the TDP for the M16 rifle, but its status as the sole supplier for the military ended in the late 1980s, when FN Manufacturing LLC won its first contract. The Army still uses versions of the M16, but stopped buying them when it decided to field M4s to all deploying combat units in 2006.

The M4 became the subject of congressional scrutiny in 2007 when lawmakers expressed concerned about whether soldiers had the best available weapon.

In November 2007, the weapon finished last in an Army reliability test against other carbines. The M4 suffered more stoppages than the combined number of jams by the other three competitors: the Heckler & Koch XM8; FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR; and the H&K 416.

Army weapons officials agreed to perform the dust test after a July 2007 request by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. Coburn took up the issue after a Feb. 26, 2007, Army Times report on moves by elite Army special operations units to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable.

U.S. Special Operations Command decided to move away from the M4 in November 2004 when the command awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its SCAR to replace its M4s and older M16s.

In November, gun makers from across the country attended an Army small-arms industry day in November designed to give weapons officials a look at what is available on the commercial market. There, Army Secretary Pete Geren announced that he had directed the Army’s Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., to update the carbine requirement in preparation for a search for a replacement for the M4.

“If there are no significant issues, I think [the updated requirement] can move through” the Army validation process and receive the blessing of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, Tamilio said.

If that happens, the Army plans to release a draft request for proposal to the small-arms industry in October and a formal RFP early next year, weapons officials maintain.

The first round of testing will likely begin late next summer and last though summer 2011.

Once a weapon is selected in late fiscal 2011, weapons officials hope to have operational testing and a full rate-production decision by late summer in 2012, Tamilio said.

One of the most critical parts of this process will be the three to five months between the draft RFP and the release of the formal RFP, when the industry has the chance to digest and understand what the Army wants in a new carbine, he said.

“Those discussions we have with industry will be vital to getting the real RFP on the street and that should really make for a solid competition,” he said.

SWATcop556
07-08-09, 01:56
For now, the Army is planning to begin a competition in October that could produce a new carbine by sometime in 2012, but there are no guarantees, weapons officials maintain.

The news I've been waiting for!!!!!!!!

I will be the pround owner of a Masada/ACR in 2014ish.............:rolleyes:

Savior 6
07-08-09, 03:32
I just hope that the Masada as Magpul knew it isn't dead. I don't have faith in bigger companies that will always fall back on "old reliable" as opposed to "better".

Cameron
07-08-09, 09:44
Rather than the SCAR or the Masada, I was thinking about the more immediate implications for a company like Colt. Without a monopolistic hold on the military's M4 source will they have to cater more to the civilian market in order to remain profitable?

Cameron

markm
07-08-09, 10:10
Maybe this is part of the reason for the nice availability of LE Colt guns these days.

BAC
07-08-09, 10:53
I've got two main questions, now. Will Colt, without the demands of .gov for exactly-to-spec rifles, maintain their quality or allow it to slip? Will the TDP, now in the hands of the Army, filter out so that even companies like DPMS can see that building to-spec rifles is neither hard nor expensive?


-B

.45fmjoe
07-08-09, 11:04
I've got two main questions, now. Will Colt, without the demands of .gov for exactly-to-spec rifles, maintain their quality or allow it to slip? Will the TDP, now in the hands of the Army, filter out so that even companies like DPMS can see that building to-spec rifles is neither hard nor expensive?


-B

RIF. You missed the part about Colt is still producing carbines until 2011. Similarly, did you not realize this doesn't automatically mean Colt no longer makes carbines? They are no longer contractually the sole provider, that is all. ;)

Also, their LE line rifles are not inspected by a government inspector anyway so if they have been producing this quality without them already, why would you even entertain the idea they would start "slipping?"


If the TDP spec is so difficult to find in order to build to it before this, how does Paul at BCM pull it off? DPMS doesn't care about building to the TDP, period.

dbrowne1
07-08-09, 11:23
I've got two main questions, now. Will Colt, without the demands of .gov for exactly-to-spec rifles, maintain their quality or allow it to slip? Will the TDP, now in the hands of the Army, filter out so that even companies like DPMS can see that building to-spec rifles is neither hard nor expensive?
-B

I'm wondering the same thing. If Colt loses the contract and doesn't have the need to follow the specs and do all of the testing, they may be tempted to cut costs so that they can compete with the Bushmasters and Olympics in the non-government market.

On the other hand, if somebody else gets the contract and is forced by government inspectors and testing to "man up" and do it right, it could be a good thing for the rest of us. If Colt keeps at least a piece of government business - either being one of several suppliers of M4s or supplying parts - then perhaps their quality won't slip and we'll end up with 2 or more viable makers.

C4IGrant
07-08-09, 11:29
Maybe this is part of the reason for the nice availability of LE Colt guns these days.

;)


C4

C4IGrant
07-08-09, 11:31
I've got two main questions, now. Will Colt, without the demands of .gov for exactly-to-spec rifles, maintain their quality or allow it to slip? Will the TDP, now in the hands of the Army, filter out so that even companies like DPMS can see that building to-spec rifles is neither hard nor expensive?


-B


From talking to someone inside Colt, they plan on holding their weapons to the TDP (no cheapening of parts).

For companies to look at the TDP, an NDA will be signed.

Companies like DPMS (for instance) have and or had boot leg copies of the TDP for years. They know how to make a quality weapon, but just choose not too (as it is too expensive and the people that buy their weapons would not appreciate the changes).


C4

.45fmjoe
07-08-09, 12:44
Maybe this is part of the reason for the nice availability of LE Colt guns these days.

Not really. The three million dollar equipment/infrastructure upgrade had more to do with it. ;)

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news8683.html

markm
07-08-09, 12:52
Not really. The three million dollar equipment/infrastructure upgrade had more to do with it. ;)


Which was probably done to get some of that civilian rifle money. As an outsider, I can only guess that Colt has finally figured out that they've been leaving millions of dollars on the table for DPMS and Bushmaster to take.

Saginaw79
07-08-09, 12:57
Lets hope COLT tries real hard to right the wrongs of the past if they expect to survive, but now their bread will be buttered by us peons LOL

.45fmjoe
07-08-09, 12:58
Which was probably done to get some of that civilian rifle money. As an outsider, I can only guess that Colt has finally figured out that they've been leaving millions of dollars on the table for DPMS and Bushmaster to take.

Check out the article, Colt has wanted to do this for ten years but didn't have the money. They ramped up production of the LE line of rifles, and introduced the Rail Gun and re-introduced the DE. Good times all around. Now if we could just get back the DA revolvers... :D

markm
07-08-09, 14:24
Now if we could just get back the DA revolvers... :D

Yeah. I heard those Pythons are bringing a lot of money.

Artos
07-08-09, 15:21
Can Colt survive without the military in the current AR civi market?? I have my doubts....my understanding there will never be any more da revolvers. Most of those craftsman have moved on and tooling sold off.

Let's hope they keep a piece of the pie.

.45fmjoe
07-08-09, 15:57
Can Colt survive without the military in the current AR civi market?? I have my doubts....my understanding there will never be any more da revolvers. Most of those craftsman have moved on and tooling sold off.

Let's hope they keep a piece of the pie.

You know they have contracts with something like 90 countries across the globe, right?

SwatDawg15
07-08-09, 16:01
Not really. The three million dollar equipment/infrastructure upgrade had more to do with it. ;)

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news8683.html

This...

Artos
07-08-09, 16:22
You know they have contracts with something like 90 countries across the globe, right?


no, what % of the current yearly sales does the U.S. military account for?? I was guessing minimum 75%, but purely a wag.

d90king
07-08-09, 16:30
Not really. The three million dollar equipment/infrastructure upgrade had more to do with it. ;)

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news8683.html


Colt Defense is a different company than the Colt commercial which builds pistols ... They upgraded machinery 6 months ago... I am not aware of many changes at Defense...

RogerinTPA
07-08-09, 16:49
This is great news. As 2012 approaches, a new joint military solicitation and testing will be cranked up and hopefully, it will increase the quality in the AR manufacturing process across the board. However, I fear that most will go the way of Remington with the ACR/Masada, building one of military grade, and one of less quality for a commercial grade civilian replica, at a higher cost to the consumer.

.45fmjoe
07-08-09, 16:58
This is great news. As 2012 approaches, a new joint military solicitation and testing will be cranked up and hopefully, it will increase the quality in the AR manufacturing process across the board. However, I fear that most will go the way of Remington with the ACR/Masada, building one of military grade, and one of less quality for a commercial grade civilian replica, at a higher cost to the consumer.

Doubtful, Colt has hammer forged barrel capabilities, rifle collapsible stock capabilities and other cool shit (Colt Canada) that could have been done domestically to the M4 platform. So does FN, they could have done the same for the M16. Nothing has changed, and that is because of Uncle Sam.

RogerinTPA
07-08-09, 17:32
Doubtful, Colt has hammer forged barrel capabilities, rifle collapsible stock capabilities and other cool shit (Colt Canada) that could have been done domestically to the M4 platform. So does FN, they could have done the same for the M16. Nothing has changed, and that is because of Uncle Sam.

Nothing has changed yet. My post wasn't pointed at Colt, or any top tier AR producer, but at the lesser, bottom tiered manufacturers. Maybe, just maybe, they will increase the quality in their ARs, thereby benefiting the civilian consumer after the fact, if and when, a new military solicitation and competition arises in the future for either A) to run more M-4s (for those who will build to the TDP) or B.) A completely new infantry weapon system. I doubt that any of the top tiered companies will lower their standards, but then again, Colt did that very thing during the last AWB. ;)

dewatters
07-08-09, 19:55
It is a bit of an exaggeration to say the Army has control of the TDP. As of July 1, the Army merely gained limited license rights to use the M4 TDP to second source production, as an extension of the 1967 licensing agreement for the M16. For the next few decades, the Army will have to pay 5% in royalties to Colt for every M4 procured from second sources. (My sources disagree as to whether royalty payments will end on December 24, 2037 or December 31, 2050.) The TDP will remain Colt proprietary data, and any second source M4 contractor will no doubt be required to sign non-disclosure/non-use agreements just as they do for the M16.

This is not the end of Colt's current .mil contract for the M4. The current contract allows new delivery orders to be placed to the end of calender year 2010. As it now stands, the current delivery orders stretch production out to Spring 2011.

CTBuilder1
07-08-09, 20:18
Colt Defense is a different company than the Colt commercial which builds pistols ... They upgraded machinery 6 months ago... I am not aware of many changes at Defense...

Different company on paper. Same building in West Hartford.

d90king
07-08-09, 20:35
Different company on paper. Same building in West Hartford.

No that's not the case. Two completely different facilities. When you tour Colt, you can only gain access to Colt, not the defense company. Same property not the same building per say. They are treated as two separate companies. One has 100+/- employees, Defense I think has close to 500+/-...

dewatters
07-09-09, 20:11
The companies receiving second source M4 contracts will only be able to use the Colt M4 TDP to supply the US government. Whether or not the US government can then turn around and export these carbines is a matter of the 1967 license agreement and subsequent amendments. Certainly, FN-made M16 are being contracted by the US Army on behalf of the Iraqi military.

The non-disclosure/non-use agreements for accessing the TDP will forbid the other companies from using Colt's proprietary data for commercial sales. Once their military contract ends, the company will be required to be destroy all of the TDP information provided to them.

The following link provides the US Army's standard non-disclosure/non-use agreement for contractors accessing the M16 TDP:

https://aais.ria.army.mil/AAIS/Solinfo/Standard_Attachments/Colt-M16_Non_Disclosure_Agreement.doc

CTBuilder1
07-09-09, 20:38
No that's not the case. Two completely different facilities. When you tour Colt, you can only gain access to Colt, not the defense company. Same property not the same building per say. They are treated as two separate companies. One has 100+/- employees, Defense I think has close to 500+/-...

Right, same property would be a better way to describe it.

Close proximity to the Home Depot as well ;)

variablebinary
07-10-09, 00:53
Lets see if Colt has learned anything from the past.

Trying to increase market share in a competitive market is vastly different than having an exclusive where no one is able to come eat your lunch for you.