Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 64

Thread: new USGI Standrd A service rifle contractor

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    233
    Feedback Score
    0

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Slater View Post
    Bushmaster was recently awarded this contract:

    https://aais.ria.army.mil/aais/award...001/000000.pdf

    Are these rifles that are required to be manufactured to the TDP or just a "commercial" (if that's an appropriate term) Bushy version?
    Given that the contract specifies the NSN for the military M16A3, it should be made to TDP specs. Previous FMS contracts for Bushmaster commercial "M16A3" only show the generic NSN 9999-99-999-9999.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    233
    Feedback Score
    0

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by AllAmerican View Post
    My question is, was any other company approached to provide weapons besides Bushmaster, if not, I wonder why not. I did not realize Bushmaster was that big.
    According to DefenseLink.mil, nine companies bid on the original solicitation. So far, FN, Colt, and Bushmaster are known to have received contract awards stemming from the solicitation. I'd like to know whether or not TACOM's awards for 08D0119 and 08D0123 are related to the other three awards in-between, but TACOM doesn't have the particulars listed on their website.

    The military is rightfully worried that their base of domestic small arms manufacturers is too small. This effects prices and supply. The original solicitation indicated that they wanted to make multiple awards, and set aside small portions of the overall quantity for this purpose.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,562
    Feedback Score
    0
    So this award is related to industrial base issues? Makes sense, as Colt and FN seem to be meeting their delivery requirements.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Free State of Nebraska
    Posts
    5,427
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinB View Post
    Yup

    My BM (lower) has ALL parts replaced with Colt (except the actual lower)

    +1

    I will only use their lowers and some of their uppers, and two of their barrel offerings.
    "Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    233
    Feedback Score
    0

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Slater View Post
    So this award is related to industrial base issues? Makes sense, as Colt and FN seem to be meeting their delivery requirements.
    If you check other TACOM solicitations, the Army has opened up bidding on M240 and M249 (complete weapons and parts) to Colt and General Dynamics (Saco) along with the obvious source FN. Colt has a contract from one of these solicitations, although I can't remember which part/assembly is involved.

    In addition, within the last year, KAC's RAS/MWS components have been outsourced by TACOM to several different companies. In fact, one part of the solicitation that led to the recent M16A3 and M16A4 awards asked for quotes on producing/providing the M5 ARS for some of the M16A4 being ordered.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Merritt, North Carlolina
    Posts
    240
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dewatters View Post
    According to DefenseLink.mil, nine companies bid on the original solicitation. So far, FN, Colt, and Bushmaster are known to have received contract awards stemming from the solicitation. I'd like to know whether or not TACOM's awards for 08D0119 and 08D0123 are related to the other three awards in-between, but TACOM doesn't have the particulars listed on their website.

    The military is rightfully worried that their base of domestic small arms manufacturers is too small. This effects prices and supply. The original solicitation indicated that they wanted to make multiple awards, and set aside small portions of the overall quantity for this purpose.
    HHHMMMM This may explain why the gundealer in Charlotte told me recently that he was having a very hard time getting any type of AR rifle. I went in to buy a BM Shorty and thought the price was a little high. ($1019.00) That for the removable handle model. Of course that could just be a selling technique. I have only been to the one store. Now I am having second thoughts after reading the posts here, about BM.

    Thanks for the information, Very helpful)

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dewatters View Post
    If you check other TACOM solicitations, the Army has opened up bidding on M240 and M249 (complete weapons and parts) to Colt and General Dynamics (Saco) along with the obvious source FN. Colt has a contract from one of these solicitations, although I can't remember which part/assembly is involved.
    Colt got a contract for M249 barrels. Think that was this summer?

    Quote Originally Posted by dewatters View Post
    In addition, within the last year, KAC's RAS/MWS components have been outsourced by TACOM to several different companies. In fact, one part of the solicitation that led to the recent M16A3 and M16A4 awards asked for quotes on producing/providing the M5 ARS for some of the M16A4 being ordered.
    That is why Knight’s has products for the commercial market now. Knight’s sole source agreement expired. Am sure they are getting royalty payments though.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    1,539
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

    Military Production

    Since the government owns the M16 technical data package and acceptance is to MILSPEC I'm surprised more companies aren't bidding on making M16s.

    Cerberus' purchase of Bushamster gives them an initial limited production base. I think if they really wanted to they could outsource production in-house to their other machine shops up to and including Chrysler. This is exactly what many companies did in WWII when guns were made by all kinds of unrelated companies (mortars by Whirlpool and GE, Grease Guns by GM Guide Lamp, 45s by Remington-Rand's typewriter division, etc.).

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    27
    Feedback Score
    0
    Interesting. So colts exclusive contract on the M4 is up in 09?

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinister View Post
    Since the government owns the M16 technical data package and acceptance is to MILSPEC I'm surprised more companies aren't bidding on making M16s.
    The .gov does not own the TDP, they purchased a nonexclusive limited rights licensee agreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by godsmack View Post
    Interesting. So colts exclusive contract on the M4 is up in 09?
    Correct, but Colt will get royalty payments.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •