new USGI Standrd A service rifle contractor

[Ekie]

This is Bushmasters first USGI Standard A rifle or Carbine contract. That is why it is big news, even though not one has been delivered yet.

The 65 Bushmaster carbines mentioned above were not M4 Carbines. The TDP for the M4 was not completed until 1996, while the Bushmaster carbines were delivered in 1990. The time line does not add up.

Colt never sued to stop Bushmaster for delivering M4 Carbines to the U.S. Government. That is just down right goofy. Even if such as thing was to happen, ignoring the time line, one could provide a link to such a suit.

Scott if correct, way too late for such silliness…

[Ekie]

@VA_Dinger

I find it very hard to believe that if Bushmaster started such things as MP testing all their bolts, using F height FSB’s, improved QC, or properly staking carrier keys they would get a lawsuit from Colt.

Agreed.

[Buck]

@VA_Dinger

I find it very hard to believe that if Bushmaster started such things as MP testing all their bolts, using F height FSB’s, improved QC, or properly staking carrier keys they would get a lawsuit from Colt.

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…

@Ekie

The 65 Bushmaster carbines mentioned above were not M4 Carbines. The TDP for the M4 was not completed until 1996, while the Bushmaster carbines were delivered in 1990. The time line does not add up.

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.”

@Ekie

Colt never sued to stop Bushmaster for delivering M4 Carbines to the U.S. Government. That is just down right goofy. Even if such as thing was to happen, ignoring the time line, one could provide a link to such a suit.

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/cohen/2005/dmc_09202005_2-04cv240_colt_v_bushmaster_affirmed_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

[Submariner]

@Buck

Be assured Commandant Hagee, who now sits on Bushmaster’s board of directors, will not allow sub-standardly assembled or parts, on a weapon that is going into the hands of the Marines…

Buck

What would Smedley Butler say about this?:rolleyes:

[ZGXtreme]

@Submariner

What would Smedley Butler say about this?:rolleyes:

Due to his typical way of conducting business, I wouldn’t mind hearing Gen. Mattis’ direct and outspoken thoughts on the subject!

[markm]

@Ekie

Nope, these are USGI, USMC and USN to be specific.

You know me better then that Dinger, USGI stuff is my thing.

Indeed! It’s time to PROTEST this nonsense!:mad:

[Ekie]

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/hyper/issues/1989/12/behindlines.html

http://www.dougsimpson.com/river/archives/000170.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2D6163CF932A35753C1A964958260

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

[Ekie]

@Buck

Bushmaster has the ability to make a fine rifle… I have one of their carbines produced in the 1980s that will rival any of the Colts I have seen of the same vintage… It was correctly assembled, torqued, staked, MPI proof tested, shot peened, and the like…

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?

@Buck

Something happened to Bushmaster in the 1990s that led to poor quality control and a shaky reputation… They lost all their government contracts for the M203

Lost the M203 contract? They never had it.

@Buck

and Colt sued to prevent them from making anymore M4s for the military…

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.

@Buck

Yes they did… If you follow the link to the lawsuit that Colt filed against Bushmaster they acknowledge this fact and at that time filed suit to prevent the Army from buying anymore…

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.

[system]

Well… the BM bantery begins

Regarding Colt’s timeline, I was issued a new Colt Flattop “m4” in 1991 it said m16a2 carbine on the lower, but had a stamped m4 on the cloverleaf hole where the gas tube goes in. Auto & semi trigger group, no burst.

BM products, in my experience, are complete shit. I saw 6 guys from a PMC, in Iraq, at a range, all 6 of their brand new “m4” carbines went down. I lead them to a USG armorer who tested all the trigger group & bolt parts dimensionally & for hardness, declared the way out of spec. All the BCG, trigger group, recoil spring, & buffers were replaced with USGI. They ran OK after that.

I read an AAR about some of their peers, (who weren’t so lucky to get a savvy armorers help) one KIA when [COLOR=“Red”]two of the 4 BM [/COLOR]rifles went down in a fight. This company shit canned 300+ BM carbines after. They had too, no user confidence just about causing a walk off, and liability reasons.

My experience may not be representive of the thousands produced, but it was stinging witness to some horrible QA/QC.

[Ekie]

@Dano5326

Regarding Colt’s timeline, I was issued a new Colt Flattop “m4” in 1991 it said m16a2 carbine on the lower, but had a stamped m4 on the cloverleaf hole where the gas tube goes in. Auto & semi trigger group, no burst.

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.

@Dano5326

Well… the BM bantery begins

BM products, in my experience, are complete shit. I saw 6 guys from a PMC, in Iraq, at a range, all 6 of their brand new “m4” carbines went down. I lead them to a USG armorer who tested all the trigger group & bolt parts dimensionally & for hardness, declared the way out of spec. All the BCG, trigger group, recoil spring, & buffers were replaced with USGI. They ran OK after that.

I read an AAR about some of their peers, (who weren’t so lucky to get a savvy armorers help) one KIA when [COLOR=“Red”]two of the 4 BM [/COLOR]rifles went down in a fight. This company shit canned 300+ BM carbines after. They had too, no user confidence just about causing a walk off, and liability reasons.

My experience may not be representive of the thousands produced, but it was stinging witness to some horrible QA/QC.

The Bushmaster products you describe above are a completely separate issue then what is called for in the contract with TACOM.

[system]

No, It was quite clearly the end of 1991, the day to day activities when your a BUD/S student are seared into your pumpkin. I may have cleaned my carbine once or twice. They were brand new out of the box, the slip rings were a bitch to compress with ones cold tired little claws… we were timed on disassembly/assembly of the range of weapons. That damn slip ring sucked. & the ever watchful eyes of the instructor cadre looked for the scratch marks on the barrel nut when we would try to use a screwdriver to pre-maturely wear the wavy spring by pushing the slip ring down.

I’m well aware that the new USG contract stipulates adherence to a TDP. Hence the required two years for Bushmaster to get a viable assembly line up to speed.

IMO this changes squat with BM. The best predictor of ones future performance (individual & corporate) is ones previous performance. The corporate culture of “good enough”, isn’t. Especially with a Co. that has years of aggressively markets to LE and agencies.

[Terry]

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.

[Shihan]

Bushmaster Advertisement

[b]We make weapons for the US Military

Now buy our heavily advertised below par junk stuff![/b]

[Buck]

@Terry

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.

No that is not what is being said… The state of affairs is that currently produced Bushmasters use some poor quality parts, and poor quality control that result in weapons that statistically do not stand up to hard use without having some work done to them…

The hope is that just as Colt Defense produces the LE6920 and others as non NFA weapons using the high quality parts and QC from the military production lines both here and in Canada, that this contract will raise the bar for Bushmaster and they will start to use better quality parts and have higher QC, and that this new standard will work its way through a the entire Bushmaster product line…

As I stated in my original post on this subject, Bushmaster has the ability to make a fine rifle and we will just have to see if they do…

The jury is still out…

[Dave_L]

The company my contract is with has a huge contract with BM…I will never own one of these pieces of Shit. Horrible combat weapon from end to end.

[Ekie]

@Terry

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.

Close. If Bushmaster was to sell rifles to us that incorporated things they had learned from getting Colt’s TDP they would be in violation of thier NDA.

There is nothing wrong with having a bunch of checks on Rob’s chart. LMT has most checked off, and they don’t have the TDP.

[Ekie]

@Dano5326

No, It was quite clearly the end of 1991,………

It would seem that there were some flat tops let out prior to the commonly understood 1992 flat top introduction.

@Dano5326

I’m well aware that the new USG contract stipulates adherence to a TDP. Hence the required two years for Bushmaster to get a viable assembly line up to speed.

IMO this changes squat with BM. The best predictor of ones future performance (individual & corporate) is ones previous performance. The corporate culture of “good enough”, isn’t. Especially with a Co. that has years of aggressively markets to LE and agencies.

We are on the same page.

[Buck]

…

[scottryan]

@Ekie

There is nothing wrong with having a bunch of checks on Rob’s chart. LMT has most checked off, and they don’t have the TDP.

But some of that can be reverse engineered.

[DANGER_CLOSE]

what about what ‘chesty’ puller would say. i am guessing that these are for the iraq army.