View Full Version : Who will build the new M4 for the US military?
Does this open the door for companies such as Ruger?
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.
First guess would be FN, as they already manufacture the M16 and SAW. But I suppose it's up to whichever company can meet the requirements at the lowest cost.
But I think this pretty much means Colt is going to be in trouble.
But I think this pretty much means Colt is going to be in trouble.
+1 I suspect they will lose the next go round.
Some good discussion here:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=33939
Edited to add another link also:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=33853
DPMS will build the new Rifle. After all, we all know that they are the best right. ;)
Voodoochild
08-04-09, 19:07
Would be great for a company like DD to get the contract. But who knows it will come down to the lowest bidder.
I suspect there are a number of American gun manufacturers who have so little experience producing a product to a standard that they lack the institutional excellence required to produce a standard service arm.
I know very little about manufacturers' production capabilities, but it would seem to me like LMT and Sabre are right there.
I'm still confused as to why Colt isn't assumed to continue producing them...? They have the facilities, capabilities, and experience- if it's simple economics, wouldn't one assume Colt could produce the weapon to spec for less than everyone else anyway? What's changed?
But who knows it will come down to the lowest bidder.
One would certainly hope not.
I know very little about manufacturers' production capabilities, but it would seem to me like LMT and Sabre are right there.
I'm still confused as to why Colt isn't assumed to continue producing them...? They have the facilities, capabilities, and experience- if it's simple economics, wouldn't one assume Colt could produce the weapon to spec for less than everyone else anyway? What's changed?
FN already got the M16 away from Colt. Colt is based in CT and is unionized, FN is based in SC and is not unionized. Without getting into a pro/anti union argument, unionized companies generally have higher cost structures and take longer to implement production changes.
LMT and Sabre might be in the running, but the question is whether or not they have the production capacity to meet the demand.
One would certainly hope not.
How do you think Beretta ended up with the M9?
lol
RogerinTPA
08-04-09, 22:54
The one benefit to us will be that Colt has appeared to have stopped neglecting the civilian market and has started to cranking out and filling the market with 6920s.
variablebinary
08-05-09, 00:11
The one benefit to us will be that Colt has appeared to have stopped neglecting the civilian market and has started to cranking out and filling the market with 6920s.
Noticed that, did ya.
All my local dealers have 6920's...that arent selling :(
How do you think Beretta ended up with the M9?
lol
Because it's the best!!
Seriously though, I love when people use the excuse 'The military uses it.' an an argument over what's better. Some people don't grasp the concept that it's not always about who build the best weapon.
My bet is on FN.
Probably a pretty safe bet.
variablebinary
08-05-09, 01:30
Who knows. Sabre, FN, Colt...it could anyone really. Maybe even an automotive company with massive production capacity.
the lowest bidder.
I couldn't help but snort when I read that. :p
RogerinTPA
08-05-09, 10:17
Noticed that, did ya.
All my local dealers have 6920's...that arent selling :(
They aren't selling in my AO because they are still marked up at preObama prices, $1700.00 and up. I don't know if the prices reflect what the dealers paid for them, in order to not sell at a loss, but the prices are still steap as hell. I recommend to anyone in the market for an AR to shop on the errornet.
They aren't selling in my AO because they are still marked up at preObama prices, $1700.00 and up. I don't know if the prices reflect what the dealers paid for them, in order to not sell at a loss, but the prices are still steap as hell. I recommend to anyone in the market for an AR to shop on the errornet.
Quit shopping at shoot straight :p
They aren't selling in my AO because they are still marked up at preObama prices, $1700.00 and up. I don't know if the prices reflect what the dealers paid for them, in order to not sell at a loss, but the prices are still steap as hell. I recommend to anyone in the market for an AR to shop on the errornet.
THE GUN ROOM in Portland has a whole shelf of 6920s for the tempting sum of $2300.
and their world-famous horrible customer service only adds to the appeal.
RogerinTPA
08-05-09, 11:12
Quit shopping at shoot straight :p
You got that right. Been there to shoot once, a few years ago, and never returned. I steer everyone away from that place.
THE GUN ROOM in Portland has a whole shelf of 6920s for the tempting sum of $2300.
and their world-famous horrible customer service only adds to the appeal.
Only going for $1899 at a shop in my neck of the woods. I would be tempted to pick one up at that price, but I just got one off of gunbroker a few weeks ago for $1175 :D.
00leland00
08-05-09, 17:26
They aren't selling in my AO because they are still marked up at preObama prices, $1700.00 and up. I don't know if the prices reflect what the dealers paid for them, in order to not sell at a loss, but the prices are still steap as hell. I recommend to anyone in the market for an AR to shop on the errornet.
There's a local dealer here in Savannah that has a whole stack of them for $1169
Why is everyone assuming that this will be a sole-source award? There could easily be multiple companies filling the requirement.
Or did I miss something?
Mr.Goodtimes
08-05-09, 22:51
Quit shopping at shoot straight :p
amen to that. the owner of that hell hole needs to be taken out and shot for thievery. that place is a joke. ill never buy a gun from them. they can take their $1700 colts, $40 windowed pmags, $20 M193; shove it up their ass and burn in hell. I hope that camel jockey that owns that place has to start eating those $40 pmags.
i dont know if you can tell or not, but, i dont really like shoot straight.
I suspect there are a number of American gun manufacturers who have so little experience producing a product to a standard that they lack the institutional excellence required to produce a standard service arm.
100% correct answer.
FN already got the M16 away from Colt.
False.
Colt never got dropped from M16 production.
How do you think Beretta ended up with the M9?
lol
Because at the time it was one of the few proven DA/SA hammer fired pistols on the arms market that met the requirements layed out for the 1911 replacement.
variablebinary
08-06-09, 01:11
They aren't selling in my AO because they are still marked up at preObama prices, $1700.00 and up. I don't know if the prices reflect what the dealers paid for them, in order to not sell at a loss, but the prices are still steap as hell. I recommend to anyone in the market for an AR to shop on the errornet.
They are in the $1199 - $1399 range.
In general though, guns aren't moving. One dealer is selling every EBR with 3 mags to try and move product,
amen to that. the owner of that hell hole needs to be taken out and shot for thievery. that place is a joke. ill never buy a gun from them. they can take their $1700 colts, $40 windowed pmags, $20 M193; shove it up their ass and burn in hell. I hope that camel jockey that owns that place has to start eating those $40 pmags.
i dont know if you can tell or not, but, i dont really like shoot straight.
No really, tell me how you feel. Dont let it build up in side of you :D
SS aint going no where. He does his marketing well, has his stores set to look like department stores, and is able to suck in the n00bs. Its a winning combination. I would give my left nut to get the funding to open a store of my own and yeah, I know I could run him under.
Submariner
08-07-09, 09:18
Cerberus acquired Bushmaster back in '06 and DPMS in '07. It also owns Remington. It will try to get the contract. But can they produce a product which meets the standard?
decodeddiesel
08-07-09, 09:52
I am quite sure there will be a DoD sponsored Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) where the companies will be able to send in bid proposals based on time line, quantity ordered, ability to meet the TDP, etc.
My guess is Colt, LMT, Sabre, and FN are about the only companies with the current capabilities to produce a service weapon which meets TDP. Cerebus maybe if they pool the resources of Bushy/DPMS/Remington but even then they would HAVE to meet the TDP established in the statement of work.
BushmasterFanBoy
08-07-09, 09:59
Cerberus acquired Bushmaster back in '06 and DPMS in '07. It also owns Remington. It will try to get the contract. But can they produce a product which meets the standard?
They'll try to barely skimp by, just meeting the bare minimum. On the plus side, hopefully the product improvements make their way into their civvy guns.
False.
Colt never got dropped from M16 production.
FN is currently the primary supplier of M16's to the government, and products the majority of them. This was considered a big blow to Colt when it happened. The M4 exclusive contract was considered a consolation prize for Colt until the Army made the M4 standard issue. So while Colt wasn't completely dropped, FN did win a sizable amount of business from them.
FN is currently the primary supplier of M16's to the government, and products the majority of them. This was considered a big blow to Colt when it happened. The M4 exclusive contract was considered a consolation prize for Colt until the Army made the M4 standard issue. So while Colt wasn't completely dropped, FN did win a sizable amount of business from them.
FN has not produced a "sizable majority" of M16s to the US government. The difference between Colt and FN production is about 40/60 and up until a few years ago Colt had produced more M16A2s and M16A4 than FN.
FN has not produced a "sizable majority" of M16s to the US government. The difference between Colt and FN production is about 40/60 and up until a few years ago Colt had produced more M16A2s and M16A4 than FN.
Are you talking total numbers produced, or current production levels? Colt has produced more rifles in total because they were more or less the exclusive supplier (except during the Vietnam War) until 1988. FN has been the primary supplier since.
Because at the time it was one of the few proven DA/SA hammer fired pistols on the arms market that met the requirements layed out for the 1911 replacement.
Wasn't the trial run a second time so that Beretta would have a shot?
Wasn't the trial run a second time so that Beretta would have a shot?
Supposedly the Sig P226 and Beretta 92 both passed the trials, but Beretta underbid Sig by a very small amount. There have been accusations that Beretta was given confidential information about Sig's bid so they could underbid it. There has also been talk that there was a political motive with regard to US bases in Italy. I don't think there's a whole lot of proof about the accusations, but I do think that Sig would have been a better choice.
Are you talking total numbers produced, or current production levels? Colt has produced more rifles in total because they were more or less the exclusive supplier (except during the Vietnam War) until 1988. FN has been the primary supplier since.
I'm talking about the number of M16A2s/M16A3s/M16A4s from the 1980s until now. The split between the two companies is 40/60 percent roughly. This is not a "sizable majority" on FN's behalf.
My other post post was clear.
We can't forget about the masada from ????
decodeddiesel
08-07-09, 22:21
We can't forget about the masada from ????
Sadly, for all intents and purposes, yes we can.
The_War_Wagon
08-08-09, 07:53
Its a new "spread-the-wealth-around" directive, no doubt. :rolleyes: Count on low bid to win the day; maybe we'll adopt the AK47 as our next rifle! Outsource the contract to Norinco! :eek:
Its a new "spread-the-wealth-around" directive, no doubt. :rolleyes: Count on low bid to win the day; maybe we'll adopt the AK47 as our next rifle! Outsource the contract to Norinco! :eek:
No kidding. Given what's going on and the typical MO of the current administration, the government will have to check the "friends and donors" and "enemies" lists before giving out the contract to a union company with ties to Chicago politics and announcing how wonderful it is and accusing any bid protestors of "standing in the way of progress."
It's a damned shame that the US Firearm Industry has been brought to this. I respect FN, H&K, Sig Sauer, Glock, etc., but this is ridiculous.
I would assume, whoever is the lowest bidder, that meets the standard. Its not like they just go to Sportsman warehouse and buy the cheapest AR on the shelf.
The Military doesn't necessarily go with the "lowest bidder" they go with the best value.
From discussions with Pat Rogers and Ken Elmore, Colt never stopped building A2's or A4's. FN got a contract, so did Colt.
The M4 was not a consolation prize, Colt developed the M4, they owned the rights to what makes an M4 an M4, they were the only ones that could produce an M4, legally. Hence the lawsuit against BM.
The Beretta and Sig essentially tied in the competition, since the military considered the guns essentially the same, they went with the least expensive one, or the best value.
The second competition was run, IIRC, to satisfy complaints from competitors, Beretta won that also.
I was in when the M9 came into service, prior to that, the 1911's never left the arms room, were never shot, and no one thought much of them, other then the standard gun rag, arms room lore....fire it w/ a pound of sand in it, .45 was a manstopper, etc. Not a whole lot of real world experience though.
While some units did retain highly modified 1911's for specific reasons, I think the idea that whole services resisted the M9, is not quite accurate. Though, didn't they not want to give up the '03 also;)
Either way, I'm sure Colt will be fine, if not they can always get a bailout, right:D
Bob
Combat_Diver
08-10-09, 03:39
I believe that the contract will stay with Colt or FN. But now that the government owns GM don't rule that out. Remember GM has built many guns for the Army before (M2 & M1919 MGs, M3 SMG and the M16A1).
On the pistols, during the second trails for the M10 pistol, SIG did not resubmit as they stated they already statisfied the requirements and Beretta won again (no need to have the same pistol with two Model numbers). SIG did win the compact pistol M11 contract.
CD
This is an interesting development to the whole story.
http://www.defensereview.com/colt-defense-rebuts-matt-coxs-army-times-article-army-acquires-rights-to-m4/
July 27, 2009
On July 7, 2009, Army Times published an article by Matt Cox (Matthew Cox) titled Army acquires rights to M4. It’s an interesting piece on the Colt M4 Carbine (Colt M4/M4A1 Carbine). However, according to one of DefenseReview’s contacts at Colt Defense, Cox’s article is…how can I put this diplomatically…not completely accurate on a few points.
Defense Review’s contact at Colt Defense sent us a point-by-point rebuttal to Cox’s article by email on July 22, 2009. The rebuttal is presented in the form of embedded parentheticals provided by Colt Defense’s legal department. The following email message contained the complete Army Times article, but we’re only publishing the relevant portion with the rebuttal. To read the full Army Times piece in its original state, click on the link above. Note: The email message below has been sanitized for OPSEC and edited for readability.
from xxxx
to David Crane ,
xxxx
date Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:16 PM
subject FW: Army Times 6 July 2009
mailed-by colt.com
hide details Jul 22 (4 days ago) Reply
David,
Matthew Cox’ latest article on the “Army Acquires Rights to M4” below requires clarification due to some misinformation. Provided below from our legal department in the parentheticals is clarification of those comments.
Best regards,
xxxx
Subject: Army Times
Army acquires rights to M4 [CORRECT: Yes, it is correct because the Government's licensing rights are being expanded to include the right to compete though, if they do so, they have greater obligations to Colt, not just to pay royalties but to safeguard our entire M4 TDP that is being disclosed to those who want to compete. Previously, only those who want to make non-critical parts that are unique to the M4 had access to that part of the M4 TDP.]
By Matthew Cox <mcox@atpco.com> - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jul 6, 2009 6:26:35 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. [WRONG: The Government has not taken control over the M4 design rights. The Colt M16 License and M4 Addendum, both as amended, continue in full force and effect. While the M4 Addendum now allows the Government to compete the M4 Carbine and M4 Components, the Government is still subject to the M4 Addendum's license terms and conditions that include restrictions on use and disclosure of the Colt-proprietary M4 design rights.]
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. [WRONG: There has been no transition of ownership of the M4 technical data package to the Government. As long as the Government desires to procure the M4 Carbine, it must continue to license rights to use the Licensed Technology for the M4 Carbine, including M4 Components, from Colt. The Licensed Technology comprises of: (1) Proprietary Data owned by Colt, including the M4 technical data package; (2) Improvements made and owned by Colt; and (3) intellectual property owned or controlled by Colt, pertaining to patents, copyrights and trade secrets. Colt has no interest in transferring ownership of the Licensed Technology to the Government.]
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. [WRONG: Colt, not the Government, is and will continue to be the owner of the Licensed Technology relating to the M4 Carbine. Colt has developed and qualified this License Technology at its private expense and it certainly has not loss any rights over ownership of the M4 technical data package. The Government may use this Licensed Technology but only on a non-exclusive, non-transferable basis, as a Colt licensee, and subject to the terms and conditions of the existing M16 License and M4 Addendum.]
“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…
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Smith and Wesson?
They have a facility in Mass that is ISO certified out the wazoo and an incredible amount of manufacturing capacity. They do their own in house forging on a lot of products and the M+P 15 is making a lot of other AR vendors nervous.
They are quite capable of producing an "institutional quality" firearm to military specifications.
They will be a significant player in this whole process.
Iraqguns,
Interesting read there. I am curious about how much of the licensed information is protected by patents, and how much is simply trade secrets and other proprietary info.
A company's drawings, specs, and other info used to produce a product is their property, and if someone wants to see it, they are likely to be required to pay a license fee and sign an NDA. This appears to be the case with Colt and the TDP.
However, I am wondering how much of the content in the TDP is truly protected by patent or other legally enforceable protection. Generally, a company is allowed to reverse engineer another company's products if they are not specifically protected by patents or trademarks. Given the number of EBR's out there, trade dress or other appearance related claims are unlikely. Trademarks most likely only apply to the Colt logo and other insignia. That leaves whatever patents Colt has specifically for the M4 that haven't run out yet.
Sadly, for all intents and purposes, yes we can.
It's a damned shame that the US Firearm Industry has been brought to this. I respect FN, H&K, Sig Sauer, Glock, etc., but this is ridiculous.
+1 on both counts. It seems our anti-gun pro global governments over the years have killed the US Small arms industry and caused even more foreign made designs/companies to get the job
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.