Colt might lose rifle monopoly

[TXDMERC73]

i was reading about Colts and i stumbled over this link that Colt might lose its contract with the Military , if anyone has some newer news about this let me know. this was from june 2009

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004130.html

[d90king]

Kinda old but still worth watching... I wouldn't be surprised if they get the next contract. One never knows though. My guess is it would go to FN if they don't renew with Colt.

[vetter3006]

I did just read about this in a magazine I can't remember which one but they said they are putting it out to bid with other manufactures which it did not specify who only that the other manufactures are very happy to have the opportunity to bid against colt.

[granuale]

I thought Colt's agreement was already non-exclusive, and FN and Bushmaster at least were supplying our armed forces.

I remember a while back on Gresham's gun talk that the head of FN talked about this. Anyway, FN's website says

FN Manufacturing, located in Columbia, South Carolina, is the U.S. manufacturing arm of FN and is currently producing M16 rifles, M249 light machine guns, M240 medium machine guns, FN bolt-action rifles and FNP pistols. FNM is one of only three manufacturers designated by the U.S. Government as the domestic industrial base for small arms production. Sharing design, engineering and manufacturing expertise with FN Herstal in Belgium, FNM’s reputation for quality and reliability is clearly demonstrated by the fact that 70% of the small arms used by U.S. Forces around the globe bear the FN name.

[d90king]

I thought Colt's agreement was already non-exclusive, and FN and Bushmaster at least were supplying our armed forces.

I remember a while back on Gresham's gun talk that the head of FN talked about this. Anyway, FN's website says

They provide heavy guns and SPEC OPS with weaponry but Colt still produces the bulk of the M4's. I think their contract is through 2010 or 2011 I cant remember right now. There will be a new RFP soon enough.

In my opinion much of it is political and what politicians have the most weight for their districts. Dodd could end up helping Colt but who knows...

[synergy]

I thought Colt's agreement was already non-exclusive, and FN and Bushmaster at least were supplying our armed forces.

I remember a while back on Gresham's gun talk that the head of FN talked about this. Anyway, FN's website says

FN has, in the past...at least for the M16. I dunno about them making M4's though....all of our training m4's were Colts, at least at my old company at Ft Benning.

As for bushmaster making military weapons...nope. I wouldn't expect them to do anything in the future, either.

I know S&W is hungry for that contact though...we'll see where it goes.

[TXDMERC73]

why wouldnt Bushmaster take Colts bid? if its up for the lowest bidder then whoever makes good M4's for a bargain price will get the contract,

i read in the article that they requested Colt to lower their prices.. i wonder how low and if Colt is still charging too much for their guns.. i think Bushmaster makes great guns they have more choices and more variety of guns then any other manufacturer. but Bushmaster still charges a little too high for its guns too.

FN makes their guns very expensive their SCARs are to 4 to 5 grand for one

[synergy]

why wouldnt Bushmaster take Colts bid? if its up for the lowest bidder then whoever makes good M4's for a bargain price will get the contract.

Their-in lies the problem. Bushmaster can't turn out civilian or LE guns to spec, doing things to military standards is asking for a little much out of bushmaster.

[granuale]

FN has, in the past...at least for the M16. I dunno about them making M4's though....all of our training m4's were Colts, at least at my old company at Ft Benning.

As for bushmaster making military weapons...nope. I wouldn't expect them to do anything in the future, either.

I know S&W is hungry for that contact though...we'll see where it goes.

Did some more reading and it looks like Colt doesn't actually make any of them, but just farms out the production. Perhaps that goes to FN's 70% claim. Certainly Spec Ops stuff and SAW's can't come close to 70%.

Also looks like Colt will continue to make money off the deal no matter who makes them and will get a cut of every M4 or 16 sold to the military for some time.

I wonder if HK will try for this contract now that they have a U.S. facility?

[d90king]

Did some more reading and it looks like Colt doesn't actually make any of them, but just farms out the production. Perhaps that goes to FN's 70% claim. Certainly Spec Ops stuff and SAW's can't come close to 70%.

Also looks like Colt will continue to make money off the deal no matter who makes them and will get a cut of every M4 or 16 sold to the military for some time.

I wonder if HK will try for this contract now that they have a U.S. facility?

Would you mind posting a link that says Colt doesn't build M4's and instead has vendors build them for them.

You might find this informative...

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.

LINK:http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/0...rbine_070609w/