I think Colt's problems started probably started well before 2008, but in 2008 they started getting some unwanted scrutiny over the prices they had been charging for their government rifles:
"What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who's gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
The M4, which can shoot hundreds of bullets a minute, is a shorter and lighter version of the company's M16 rifle first used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. https://www.foxnews.com/story/report...usive-war-deal
From another story:
The original order for the M4 Carbine in the mid-1990s was a small-scale order, for a specifically requested derivative of the Army’s primary battle rifle, to equip units who would otherwise have relied on less accurate 9mm submachine guns. As such, its direct development and sole-source contract status raised little fuss. Subsequent contracts also raised little scrutiny. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...roversy-03289/
Ultimately:
After a lengthy back-and-forth bidding war between Colt and Remington, one that would eventually involve the Government Accountability Office and the threat of a Congressional hearing, F.N. Herstal has won the contract to update and replace the Army’s aging rifles.
In April of 2012, Remington finally broke the chain of Colt contracts with the U.S. Army, placing an $84 million bid for a run of 120,000 M4A1s, with 24,000 carbines to be delivered starting September of this year.
The cost per Remington M4A1 was just $673 per. Their bid severely undercut Colt’s previous contract, which priced the rifles at over $1,200 a piece.
After Remington won the first bid, Colt immediately filed a complaint with the GAO stating that the company did not properly calculate the royalties as part of their bid, and the GAO found in Colt’s favor, at least partially.
Following the decision, the GAO told the Army that they had 65 days to solicit new bids from vendors or face Congress if they went ahead and signed the Remington contract. Not willing to face the legislature over a budgetary decision, the Army complied.
Although the list of bidders was confidential, it was obviously going to be between Colt, Remington and F.N. Herstal. (Cliff's Notes: FN won)
FN’s contract with the Army is $77 million for the first 120,000 rifles, which works out to a bottom line of just under $642 per M4A1. These will be manufactured at FNH USA in South Carolina along side the M16A4s and M249s FNH USA currently produces for the U.S. armed forces. https://www.guns.com/news/2013/02/26...colt-remington
My take is that you are pretty eff'ed up if knowing how much the other guy's bid you can't win the rematch.
Then in 2015:
The bankruptcy being sought by Colt Defense was fueled by missteps with gun owners, a misreading of the police firearms market and a fall in gun sales to the public after an initial spike several years ago, analysts and industry observers say.
But a major blow to the 179-year-old gun maker was the plummeting revenue from government contracts, which Moody's Investor Service said has dropped to less than 10 percent of sales from 60 percent in 2009.
Why Colt Can't Stay Out of Bankruptcy https://www.investopedia.com/article...t-business.asp
Despite the fact that Colt still gets government business, we may be seeing the death rattles of Colt.
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.
Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee
Senior Member
Originally Posted by JulyAZ
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks