M16 vs. M4 - TDP, and Milspec

[tpelle]

Since this is a sort of history question I thought I'd post it here.

This has been bugging me for a long time. Here's my question:

Regarding the "M16", the US Government somehow came to own the Technical Data Package. (That must be a story in and of itself, as the U.S. Government didn't, as I understand it, fund the design process and the construction of prototypes as they do for, say, a missle or airplane,) So, if the military wants to buy new AR15s they publish the bid spec, wait for builders to submit bids, evaluate the bids, and award a contract. Since the military owns the TDP they can buy M16s from whoever they want. Witness the contract going to Colt's or to HK or to FN, etc.

For M4s, however, I understand that Colt's actually funded, with private money, the development of the deviations from Milspec (TDP?) to convert the 20" rifles to 14.5" carbines. These changes obviously included the M4 feed ramps, the different weight buffers, different action springs, etc. They also copyrighted the name "M4" so nobody else can use it. So Colt's "owns" the M4 design, not the Government.

So, if the government owns the TDP for the M16, how did they come to let the M4 be a single-source privately owned product?

If the "M4" particulars are patented by Colt's....well, it seems to me that M4s have been around for a long time. Hasn't the patent expired? Why can't HK or FN or Fred's House of Rifles and Screen Doors just reverse-engineer the M4 changes and go into business making M4s?

If a private builder advertises a rifle or a receiver or whatever as an M4, isn't that violating Colt's patent? (Of course the owner of a patent has to bear the legal costs of defending the patent, and I guess Colt's cant sue the whole firearms industry.)

And what the heck is the distinction between the milspec and the TDP? (I'm guessing that the milspec is included as part of the TDP?)

Help me out here, so I quit waking up at night thinking about this stuff!

[usmcvet]

Some of the companies making their "copies" haven't done a great job.

[BooneGA]

FN does make M4s for the government. We just got 23 of them in. They do appear to be over stamped M16A2 receivers. I didnt check who made the barrel, but all of the rails are P&S contract versions of the standard M4 rail.

Rick

[tpelle]

FN does make M4s for the government. We just got 23 of them in. They do appear to be over stamped M16A2 receivers. I didnt check who made the barrel, but all of the rails are P&S contract versions of the standard M4 rail.

Rick

Really! I thought that, when HK first made their HK416 they tried to call it the HK-M4, and Colt's sued them and won. From then on, Colt's was the sole provider of M4s.

Maybe what I read was wrong, then. Wouldn't be the first time some journalist got it wrong.

[usmcvet]

Good info here.

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?...13#post1271213

If BIG ARMY chooses a new rifle and it a piston type M4, there will be a TDP written and the company(s) that were awarded the contract would be in control of it (and the info will NOT be shared).

With that said, companies will reverse engineer it as best they can, but at the end of the day it will not be equal (for many reasons).


C4

[BooneGA]

No idea on the legal background. Heres a quick picture of the over stamping.

Rick

[BUBBAGUNS]

No idea on the legal background. Heres a quick picture of the over stamping.

Rick

FN could be just using the lowers that are already produced for the contract. I don't think they will all be marked as such.

[BooneGA]

That is the case. The only FN M4s are arsenal rebuilds from old M16A2 receivers. Just found that out.

Rick

[Failure2Stop]

No idea on the legal background. Heres a quick picture of the over stamping.

Rick

That looks like an A4 serial number range, though I don't know if FN makes a distinction during manufacture.

To the OP-
The name "M4" on the civilian market is copyrighted by Colt, which is the root of many (but not all, IIRC) of the previous legal hair-pulling.

Any weapon that is officially adopted by the US DOD gets a TDP, from the M9 to the M2, regardless of who designs it. It's part of the contract. Most weapons were deveoped privately prior to adoption, and contracts for the military have specific wording that permits the military to contract outside the original manufacturer for numerous reasons, from cost per item to reducing the impact of having the plant becoming suddenly unable to produce. The M4 was an oddity that, until recently, could only be sourced from Colt.

ETA: Milspec: it's a term that usually means nothing more than the parts are dimensionally correct to fit into a "real" M16XX or M4XX, and that's pretty much it.

[antlad]

That looks like an A4 serial number range, though I don't know if FN makes a distinction during manufacture.

To the OP-
The name "M4" on the civilian market is copyrighted by Colt, which is the root of many (but not all, IIRC) of the previous legal hair-pulling.

Any weapon that is officially adopted by the US DOD gets a TDP, from the M9 to the M2, regardless of who designs it. It's part of the contract. Most weapons were deveoped privately prior to adoption, and contracts for the military have specific wording that permits the military to contract outside the original manufacturer for numerous reasons, from cost per item to reducing the impact of having the plant becoming suddenly unable to produce. The M4 was an oddity that, until recently, could only be sourced from Colt.

ETA: Milspec: it's a term that usually means nothing more than the parts are dimensionally correct to fit into a "real" M16XX or M4XX, and that's pretty much it.

So is it just dimensions or does it also include materials used?