Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Colt's M4 contract expires. Army now has rights to M4.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Southern Command
    Posts
    1,909
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Exclamation Colt's M4 contract expires. Army now has rights to M4.


    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/07/army_carbine_070609w/


    Army acquires rights to M4


    By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
    Posted : Tuesday Jul 7, 2009 20:59:55 EDT

    As of July 1, the Army has taken control of the design rights to the M4 carbine from its sole maker, Colt Defense LLC. Translation: With an uncertain budget looming, the service is free to give other gun companies a crack at a carbine contract.

    The transition of ownership of the M4 technical data package marks the end of an era and Colt’s exclusive status as the only manufacturer of the M4 for the U.S. military for the past 15 years.

    In late November, Army senior leadership announced the service’s intent to open a competition for a new carbine this fall in preparation for the June 30 expiration date of Colt’s hold on the M4 licensing agreement.

    The Army is slated to finish fielding the last of its 473,000 M4 requirement some time next year.

    Army weapons officials maintain that it’s good to have the option of inviting other gun companies to compete to make the M4 as it is now, if the need arises, said Col. Doug Tamilio, project manager for soldier weapons.

    “We probably won’t do anything with it right now. ... We have what we need,” Tamilio said. “The good news is we will own it now; that gives us the flexibility to do what we need it to do.”

    Small-arms companies waiting for the chance to compete for the Army’s next carbine view Colt’s loss of the M4 TDP as a new beginning for the industry and for soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    “Now that the sole-source era is over, we hope to see free and open competition of any interim or long-term solution for the service rifle or carbine for the American soldier,” said Jason Schauble, vice president of the military products division of Remington. “Now there is a chance to get something better in the hands of the soldier. Why not do it? If Colt wins again, God bless them.”

    Colt officials didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.

    Some in the small-arms industry say Colt’s 15-year control over the M4 is a natural part of the gun-making business.

    “If a company designs and develops a product, they don’t do that for fun; they have a whole factory of people to feed,” said George Kontis, who is now the vice president of business development for Knights Armament Company but has worked for multiple small-arms firms since 1967.

    “This is not anything new in history. It has always happened this way,” he said.

    The next competition

    For now, the Army is planning to begin a competition in October that could produce a new carbine by sometime in 2012, but there are no guarantees, weapons officials maintain.

    Before that can happen, the Army’s updated carbine requirement — the document that lays out what the service wants in the future weapon — still has to clear the senior Army leadership and win joint approval, he said.

    Funding is another uncertainty, he said. The Army can’t begin the request for proposal process this year if the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill doesn’t include the start-up costs for the venture, Tamilio said.

    “I don’t need a lot of money,” Tamilio said. “I think it’s less than $10 million for fiscal year 2010. ... It’s obviously tied into the president’s budget in 2010.”

    Colt still owns the TDP for the M16 rifle, but its status as the sole supplier for the military ended in the late 1980s, when FN Manufacturing LLC won its first contract. The Army still uses versions of the M16, but stopped buying them when it decided to field M4s to all deploying combat units in 2006.

    The M4 became the subject of congressional scrutiny in 2007 when lawmakers expressed concerned about whether soldiers had the best available weapon.

    In November 2007, the weapon finished last in an Army reliability test against other carbines. The M4 suffered more stoppages than the combined number of jams by the other three competitors: the Heckler & Koch XM8; FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR; and the H&K 416.

    Army weapons officials agreed to perform the dust test after a July 2007 request by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. Coburn took up the issue after a Feb. 26, 2007, Army Times report on moves by elite Army special operations units to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable.

    U.S. Special Operations Command decided to move away from the M4 in November 2004 when the command awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its SCAR to replace its M4s and older M16s.

    In November, gun makers from across the country attended an Army small-arms industry day in November designed to give weapons officials a look at what is available on the commercial market. There, Army Secretary Pete Geren announced that he had directed the Army’s Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., to update the carbine requirement in preparation for a search for a replacement for the M4.

    “If there are no significant issues, I think [the updated requirement] can move through” the Army validation process and receive the blessing of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, Tamilio said.

    If that happens, the Army plans to release a draft request for proposal to the small-arms industry in October and a formal RFP early next year, weapons officials maintain.

    The first round of testing will likely begin late next summer and last though summer 2011.

    Once a weapon is selected in late fiscal 2011, weapons officials hope to have operational testing and a full rate-production decision by late summer in 2012, Tamilio said.

    One of the most critical parts of this process will be the three to five months between the draft RFP and the release of the formal RFP, when the industry has the chance to digest and understand what the Army wants in a new carbine, he said.

    “Those discussions we have with industry will be vital to getting the real RFP on the street and that should really make for a solid competition,” he said.
    Last edited by Cameron; 07-07-09 at 22:32.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,566
    Feedback Score
    45 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cameron View Post
    For now, the Army is planning to begin a competition in October that could produce a new carbine by sometime in 2012, but there are no guarantees, weapons officials maintain.
    The news I've been waiting for!!!!!!!!

    I will be the pround owner of a Masada/ACR in 2014ish.............
    Only hits count......you can not miss fast enough to catch up


    "I'm just a one man army waging jihad against shitty ARs, one rifle at a time." Will Larson (IraqGunz) I miss you my friend

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    439
    Feedback Score
    0
    I just hope that the Masada as Magpul knew it isn't dead. I don't have faith in bigger companies that will always fall back on "old reliable" as opposed to "better".
    K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple Stupid)
    KAC SR-15 IWS Tan
    KAC SR-25 EMC
    LWRC M6 IC

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Southern Command
    Posts
    1,909
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Rather than the SCAR or the Masada, I was thinking about the more immediate implications for a company like Colt. Without a monopolistic hold on the military's M4 source will they have to cater more to the civilian market in order to remain profitable?

    Cameron
    Last edited by Cameron; 07-08-09 at 10:45.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    33,018
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Maybe this is part of the reason for the nice availability of LE Colt guns these days.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,432
    Feedback Score
    0
    I've got two main questions, now. Will Colt, without the demands of .gov for exactly-to-spec rifles, maintain their quality or allow it to slip? Will the TDP, now in the hands of the Army, filter out so that even companies like DPMS can see that building to-spec rifles is neither hard nor expensive?


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009


    "When young men seek to be like you, when lazy men resent you, when powerful men look over their shoulder at you, when cowardly men plot behind your back, when corrupt men wish you were gone and evil men want you dead . . . Only then will you have done your share." - Phil Messina

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    742
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    I've got two main questions, now. Will Colt, without the demands of .gov for exactly-to-spec rifles, maintain their quality or allow it to slip? Will the TDP, now in the hands of the Army, filter out so that even companies like DPMS can see that building to-spec rifles is neither hard nor expensive?


    -B
    RIF. You missed the part about Colt is still producing carbines until 2011. Similarly, did you not realize this doesn't automatically mean Colt no longer makes carbines? They are no longer contractually the sole provider, that is all.

    Also, their LE line rifles are not inspected by a government inspector anyway so if they have been producing this quality without them already, why would you even entertain the idea they would start "slipping?"


    If the TDP spec is so difficult to find in order to build to it before this, how does Paul at BCM pull it off? DPMS doesn't care about building to the TDP, period.
    Last edited by .45fmjoe; 07-08-09 at 11:06.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,299
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    I've got two main questions, now. Will Colt, without the demands of .gov for exactly-to-spec rifles, maintain their quality or allow it to slip? Will the TDP, now in the hands of the Army, filter out so that even companies like DPMS can see that building to-spec rifles is neither hard nor expensive?
    -B
    I'm wondering the same thing. If Colt loses the contract and doesn't have the need to follow the specs and do all of the testing, they may be tempted to cut costs so that they can compete with the Bushmasters and Olympics in the non-government market.

    On the other hand, if somebody else gets the contract and is forced by government inspectors and testing to "man up" and do it right, it could be a good thing for the rest of us. If Colt keeps at least a piece of government business - either being one of several suppliers of M4s or supplying parts - then perhaps their quality won't slip and we'll end up with 2 or more viable makers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,631
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    Maybe this is part of the reason for the nice availability of LE Colt guns these days.



    C4

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,631
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    I've got two main questions, now. Will Colt, without the demands of .gov for exactly-to-spec rifles, maintain their quality or allow it to slip? Will the TDP, now in the hands of the Army, filter out so that even companies like DPMS can see that building to-spec rifles is neither hard nor expensive?


    -B

    From talking to someone inside Colt, they plan on holding their weapons to the TDP (no cheapening of parts).

    For companies to look at the TDP, an NDA will be signed.

    Companies like DPMS (for instance) have and or had boot leg copies of the TDP for years. They know how to make a quality weapon, but just choose not too (as it is too expensive and the people that buy their weapons would not appreciate the changes).


    C4

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •