Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 155

Thread: Army to Re-Bid M4 Contract

  1. #51
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinister View Post
    I wouldn't make the assumption Remington doesn't know how to manufacture to military specifications.

    US-contract Mosin-Nagant
    M1917
    Rem 870
    870 Modular Weapon System
    M40 (Vietnam era)
    M24
    M2010

    As well as having run the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.

    Should Remington fail to produce to the TDP and MILSPEC they risk default and never getting another military contract again. Bad form.

    If Remington did not have the ability to earn the contract it would never have been awarded. This was a touchdown called back on a video re-play AFTER the game was done and Super Bowl rings given.

    How many companies in the USA (and offshore) have produced M16s and M4s, and how many have knocked off ARs and M4geries?

    It's manufacturing, not rocket surgery.

    Light reading from a second source (keep in mind it's from Gannett): http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...ith-remington/

    An extract: "According to the Department of the Army’s Chief of Legislative Liaison, the Army today executed a delivery order to buy 24,000 M4A1s worth $16,163,252.07. The rifles will be made at Remington’s factory in Ilion, N.Y., from the Colt technical data package and will cost about $673.10 a copy. That’s a significantly lower price than the final order of Colt-produced M4A1s the government paid $1221 for in a 2010 contract."

    The Army's agreement clause with Colt says the service can seek a second source if Colt's capacity is near maxed out -- which it supposedly is since they're now making M240 machineguns (ironically off FN's TDP).
    From what I understand the $637 of the Remy M4's was for the bare rifle, also from what I understand in 2008 this was the pricing for Colt M4's.

    Some approximate prices for the basic (i.e. all MOS), 'standard' M4 configuration (rifle, standard sling, BFA, and one magazine):
    M4 - $500
    Rail - $300
    BUIS - $100
    M68 - $400

    Aditional items:
    ACOG $900
    Surefire kit $350
    Sling $45
    PEQ-2 $600 (if I remember correctly)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    1,539
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    So Colt got a do-over because they over-bid and lost.

    Makes me wonder how many contract awards over the span of US military history would have changed once everyone saw their competition's cards.

    I went through basic training with a GM-Hydramatic M16A1 and there was nothing wrong with it.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    341
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    From what I understand the $637 of the Remy M4's was for the bare rifle, also from what I understand in 2008 this was the pricing for Colt M4's.

    Some approximate prices for the basic (i.e. all MOS), 'standard' M4 configuration (rifle, standard sling, BFA, and one magazine):
    M4 - $500
    Rail - $300
    BUIS - $100
    M68 - $400

    Aditional items:
    ACOG $900
    Surefire kit $350
    Sling $45
    PEQ-2 $600 (if I remember correctly)
    Two questions:

    1) Is "rail" an M4 RAS?

    2) What is the Surefire kit? The weapon light?

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by everyusernametaken View Post
    Two questions:

    1) Is "rail" an M4 RAS?

    2) What is the Surefire kit? The weapon light?
    1) rail is M4 RAS
    2) I think its the M962 kit, but I could be wrong.
    Last edited by sinlessorrow; 10-11-12 at 23:07.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ND
    Posts
    260
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinister View Post
    So Colt got a do-over because they over-bid and lost.

    Makes me wonder how many contract awards over the span of US military history would have changed once everyone saw their competition's cards.

    I went through basic training with a GM-Hydramatic M16A1 and there was nothing wrong with it.
    They didn't get a do-over because they overbid, they got a do-over because of the accounting treatment for Colt's royalties amongst other arguments. On a much smaller scale we had a contract for new ambulances for our local EMS get re-bid because of a screw up very similar to this. It is what it is and the Army will probably wind up having to pay less overall for the contract (Win-win for the Army, not so much for both Colt and Freedom Group).

    Also, you're showing your age there Sinister.
    Last edited by BH321; 10-11-12 at 23:15.
    "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." - H. L. Mencken

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,033
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BH321 View Post
    They didn't get a do-over because they overbid, they got a do-over because of the accounting treatment for Colt's royalties amongst other arguments. On a much smaller scale we had a contract for new ambulances for our local EMS get re-bid because of a screw up very similar to this. It is what it is and the Army will probably wind up having to pay less overall for the contract (Win-win for the Army, not so much for both Colt and Freedom Group).

    Also, you're showing your age there Sinister.
    That was my thinking. In the end, if the taxpayer can end up with a smaller bill, it ain't all that bad.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,693
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by sinister View Post
    So Colt got a do-over because they over-bid and lost.

    Makes me wonder how many contract awards over the span of US military history would have changed once everyone saw their competition's cards.

    I went through basic training with a GM-Hydramatic M16A1 and there was nothing wrong with it.

    IIRC, CLTDEF bid $700 ish.

    GUN (that's the bond ticker symbol for Freedom Group) bid $673, but my understanding this was not inclusive of the 2.5% ish per blaster TDP royalty.

    They are not that far apart on unit price.
    Doing my part to keep malls safe

  8. #58
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinister View Post
    So Colt got a do-over because they over-bid and lost.

    Makes me wonder how many contract awards over the span of US military history would have changed once everyone saw their competition's cards.

    I went through basic training with a GM-Hydramatic M16A1 and there was nothing wrong with it.
    I don't think so. When we say "overbid" I honestly think that the difference between the bids was tiny (like under $50 dollars)!

    The Govt cannot deliver a contract to a company that simply cannot fill it (as they are not set up to do this kind of volume). So that is why it is going to be re-competed).




    C4
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 10-12-12 at 10:05.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    1,539
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    The difference between the Beretta 92 and the SIG 226 to become the M9 was less than $25 a copy.

    Bottom line if the United States Government thought Remington couldn't meet contract requirements (approximately 1200 weapons per month for the first two deliveries) they should never have awarded the contract.

    Colt is getting a second chance, plain and simple, after dicking the dog. They still haven't figured it out after having lost their first M16A4 contract to FN years ago.

    Should they win, giving the taxpayer a break, they have to deliver per usual even with their M240L contract. Chances are they can do that using their Colt Canada line (if it is open and has capacity) with no problems.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,693
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Wink

    In the meantime, it looks like CLTDEF is taking steps to get directly back into the commercial channel.

    Could a CLTDEF & CMC reunion be in the works? How is CLTDEF going to fund this transaction with relatively little cash on hand? (Yes, CMC is comparatively tiny).

    Can the re-combined entity fix its dysfunctional commercial distribution strategy? Is it too late to do so, with 150+ odd AR builders out there? Does the combination even make sense given that CMC makes a ~5% markup on commercial-bound M4's?

    How is the newco going to work around the purported social responsibility limitations imposed by Blackstone Group L.P.?, which doesn't seem to be terribly keen on CLTDEF selling guns directly to civilians?

    Will the second half of 2012 positive free cash flow guidance pan out?

    Why the hell can't I get a CM-901 where the damn thing is manufactured?

    Should I blow my wad on an OBR instead?

    Inquiring minds wanna know.

    Last edited by 30 cal slut; 10-12-12 at 13:17.
    Doing my part to keep malls safe

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •