Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 155 of 155

Thread: Army to Re-Bid M4 Contract

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,185
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Auto426 View Post
    I think what some people who demonize Colt for safeguarding the M4 TDP so aggresively fail to realize is that the TDP for the M4 is like the secret recipe for Coca Cola. It's a trade secret, and when you go spreading it around to a bunch of different companies who all use it to make guns identical to yours you loose your competitive advantage in the market. You don't see Coke handing it's recipe to Pepsi or any other beverage company because it's what makes their product unique and valuable to the consumer. People buy a Colt over a Bushmaster for a reason, and Colt isn't going to let that advantage slip away from them anytime soon.
    I also think part of the issue is that DoD is still trying to wrap their collective heads around how to deal with weapon they don't outright and completely own the rights to, even 50+ years on.

    When you consider just about every other previous issue weapon, .gov either developed the weapon themselves or purchased the rights outright (we'll ignore that whole 1903 thing where they essentially ripped off Mauser ).

    They better figure it out because I dare say they'll never completely own the rights to any rifle again...

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    1,539
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    The Army is where they're supposed to be since they purchased a commercial item -- the people they buy from (Colt's) own the rights, blueprints, and intellectual property just the same as they buy from any other commercial source -- Dell, Caterpillar, Boeing, or whomever.

    The Army negotiated licensing rights for contingencies when, like exactly right now, Colt's is maxed out for production (making M4s and lightweight M240s). If they weren't maxed out (and the government didn't need new weapons) everything would be hunky-dory and Colt exclusive. Uncle wants guns NOW and is exercising his negotiated contract option.

    If Colt hadn't wanted that they could have said, "No, you'll get it when we can make them," I'm sure Uncle could have said, "I don't think so" -- but since he doesn't OWN the design and rights, it's free market.

    Congress wanted the Army out of the weapons design and production business (closing Springfield Armory) and for the most part got what they legislated.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,562
    Feedback Score
    0
    So is this a first for FN? (from today's contract announcements) :


    FN Manufacturing L.L.C., Columbia, S.C., was awarded a firm-fixed-price contract with a maximum value of $76,922,574. The award will provide for the procurement of a maximum quantity of 120,000 M4/M4A1 Carbines and related requirements. Work location will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Feb. 19, 2018. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with six bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-13-D-0030).

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    1,539
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Yes. Until today's notice, FNH-USA had produced the M16A2 and A4.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    15
    Feedback Score
    0
    I spotted the FN M4 in the wild. My unit just received some brand new ones. They had the KAC RAS, PEQ 15, ambi safety, H2 buffer, and Comp M4.

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516

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
  •