|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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...
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."
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
"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
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
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?
Lost the M203 contract? They never had it.
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.
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.
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.
The Bushmaster products you describe above are a completely separate issue then what is called for in the contract with TACOM.
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.
Bushmaster Advertisement
We make weapons for the US Military
Now buy our heavily advertised below par junk stuff!
Bookmarks