Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64

Thread: new USGI Standrd A service rifle contractor

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VA_Dinger View Post
    I find it very hard to believe that if Bushmaster started such things as MP testing all their bolts, using F height FSB’s, improved QC, or properly staking carrier keys they would get a lawsuit from Colt.
    Agreed.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    1,794
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by VA_Dinger View Post
    I find it very hard to believe that if Bushmaster started such things as MP testing all their bolts, using F height FSB’s, improved QC, or properly staking carrier keys they would get a lawsuit from Colt.
    I believe it was for trademark and patten infringement not making a quality product...... According to the court documents the threat of a lawsuit caused the army in the 1990s to sign an M4 addendum to the 1967 agreement with colt to protect its technical data to the m16 series...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ekie View Post

    The 65 Bushmaster carbines mentioned above were not M4 Carbines. The TDP for the M4 was not completed until 1996, while the Bushmaster carbines were delivered in 1990. The time line does not add up.
    The first XM4s I believe were developed in the 1980's and according to the federal Court records the 1990 Bushmaster contract had "all the physical and technical characteristics of the M4 carbine."


    Quote Originally Posted by Ekie View Post
    Colt never sued to stop Bushmaster for delivering M4 Carbines to the U.S. Government. That is just down right goofy. Even if such as thing was to happen, ignoring the time line, one could provide a link to such a suit.
    Hers is the link to the Federal Court opinion... It lists all the discovery in this case including the 1990 Bushmaster contract and Colts actions to ensure it was the sole source provider for the M4 carbine...

    http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions...d_12062005.pdf

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a Colt fan and carry a LE6920 on duty... I just hope that this event helps bring Bushmaster back from the depths of AR hell that is finds itself in...

    Buck
    MossieTactics.com ~ KMA 367

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    1,888
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Buck View Post
    Be assured Commandant Hagee, who now sits on Bushmaster's board of directors, will not allow sub-standardly assembled or parts, on a weapon that is going into the hands of the Marines...

    Buck
    What would Smedley Butler say about this?
    "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." Justice Robert Jackson, WV St. Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

    "I don’t care how many pull ups and sit ups you can do. I care that you can move yourself across the ground with a fighting load and engage the enemy." Max Velocity

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    868
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
    What would Smedley Butler say about this?
    Due to his typical way of conducting business, I wouldn't mind hearing Gen. Mattis' direct and outspoken thoughts on the subject!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,214
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ekie View Post
    Nope, these are USGI, USMC and USN to be specific.

    You know me better then that Dinger, USGI stuff is my thing.
    Indeed! It's time to PROTEST this nonsense!
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    0
    As is typically the case when discussing Bushmaster the timeline and lawsuits get all jacked up. This confusion makes the discussion quite difficult, so I will present a brief timeline:

    12 June 1985 Colt is awarded a contract to develop the XM4 Carbine

    24 Jan 1986 the UAW walks out of Colt and begins a strike

    September 1988 FNMI is awarded the M16A2 contract instead of Colt.

    October 1988 Colt protests FNMI’s contract to the GAO

    January 1989 GAO denies Colt’s protest

    09 September 1989 NLRB ends the strike in UAWs favor

    April 1990 Bushmaster awarded a contract for 65 carbines having "all the physical and technical characteristics of the M4 Carbine." Unknown contract number.

    27 June 1990 Bushmaster delivers and is paid for the 65 Carbines

    02 August 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait.

    Colt sold in 1990, was bailed out by the State of Conn.

    Spring 1992 Colt files for Chapter 11

    1994 both USSOCOM and the US Army order up and adopt as Standard A the M4 and M4A1 Carbine.

    1996 the M4 TDP is completed, CRANE releases the TDP to 21 contractors

    Dec 1996 Colt terminates the US Government’s license for improper release of the TDP

    1997 big fight in regards to Colt’s TDP

    Dec 1997 Colt and the US Government settle up by adding the M4 addendum to the 1967 agreement. As part of this agreement the US Government is prohibited from releasing the TDP for competitive bidding till 2009.

    1998 FNMI challenges the M4 addendum in an attempt to gain M4 contracts. FNMI looses.

    Sources:

    www.thegunzone.com/556dw-7.html

    http://multinationalmonitor.org/hype...hindlines.html

    http://www.dougsimpson.com/river/archives/000170.html

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A964958260

    http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-7.html

    http://www.usfirearms.com/pdf/BushmasterWins.pdf

    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Wiese/98/FN.htm

    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Wiese/99/fn.htm

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Buck View Post
    Bushmaster has the ability to make a fine rifle... I have one of their carbines produced in the 1980s that will rival any of the Colts I have seen of the same vintage... It was correctly assembled, torqued, staked, MPI proof tested, shot peened, and the like...
    1980’s Bushmaster, or QPC rifles were of extremely low quality. They used Sendra receivers and the like. What was it, 1989 that chrome was available as an option on a QPC barrel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Buck View Post
    Something happened to Bushmaster in the 1990s that led to poor quality control and a shaky reputation... They lost all their government contracts for the M203
    Lost the M203 contract? They never had it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buck View Post
    and Colt sued to prevent them from making anymore M4s for the military...
    I posted the pertinent suits, and non of them involve Colt reacting to Bushmasters 65 Carbines. Colt did protest when CRANE started sending out the TDP in 1996, but that is different issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buck View Post
    Yes they did... If you follow the link to the lawsuit that Colt filed against Bushmaster they acknowledge this fact and at that time filed suit to prevent the Army from buying anymore...
    Again, no suit arrived from Bushmaster’s 65 Carbines in 1990. If it did you could provide a link to this suit, as I have done for other suits above.

    Colt did not “acknowledge this fact”. Look at the timeline, at the time the XM4 was experimental, not completed, and it would be another 6 years before the TDP was released. Because of this Bushmaster would have been unable to produce M4 Carbines in 1990.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dano5326 View Post

    Regarding Colt's timeline, I was issued a new Colt Flattop "m4" in 1991 it said m16a2 carbine on the lower, but had a stamped m4 on the cloverleaf hole where the gas tube goes in. Auto & semi trigger group, no burst.
    You describe a commercial/export carbine, not something I covered in that timeline (besides Bushmaster’s). Colt sold thousands of carbines of various configurations prior to the adoption of the M4 Carbine in 1994.

    Back in 1991 the M4 Carbine was the Colt's Model 720 XM4. Very few were made, and they were not issued.

    BTW, I figure you are thinking 1992, the year Colt introduced the flat top.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dano5326 View Post
    Well..... the BM bantery begins

    BM products, in my experience, are complete shit. I saw 6 guys from a PMC, in Iraq, at a range, all 6 of their brand new "m4" carbines went down. I lead them to a USG armorer who tested all the trigger group & bolt parts dimensionally & for hardness, declared the way out of spec. All the BCG, trigger group, recoil spring, & buffers were replaced with USGI. They ran OK after that.

    I read an AAR about some of their peers, (who weren't so lucky to get a savvy armorers help) one KIA when two of the 4 BM rifles went down in a fight. This company shit canned 300+ BM carbines after. They had too, no user confidence just about causing a walk off, and liability reasons.

    My experience may not be representive of the thousands produced, but it was stinging witness to some horrible QA/QC.
    The Bushmaster products you describe above are a completely separate issue then what is called for in the contract with TACOM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    326
    Feedback Score
    0
    So, if BM manufactures an M4 to the exact spec's as Colt, the TDP I guess, and sell's it to civilians, they are in violation of some court order?
    By "exact same spec's" I am referring to a non NFA carbine.
    I've read here that other companies are capable of producing carbines that will run, and run good when pushed hard, but statistically speaking, the closer to the TDP, or "mil spec", ie, Colt, LMT, the better the carbine is?
    So, if I'm understanding this discussion correctly, if BM manufactures a carbine that has all the characteristics on the left side of the "chart", Colt could and would keep civilians from being able to purchase another companies carbine by not allowing the company to a.) manufature it, or b.) sell it to civilians?
    As you can tell, I'm confused, and it doesn't really matter either way to me, but I firmly believe competition is a good thing.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,626
    Feedback Score
    0
    Bushmaster Advertisement

    We make weapons for the US Military

    Now buy our heavily advertised below par junk stuff!

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •