Anyone know anything about the US Army buying these rights to the M4 and why ?
Re: Army buys rights to M4
> 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.
> 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.
Re: Army buys rights to M4
huh... L I B
huh... L I B
Re: Army buys rights to M4
So how long until Colt is in recievership this time? Place your bets gentlemen.
So how long until Colt is in recievership this time? Place your bets gentlemen.
Re: Army buys rights to M4
help me out it doesn't make sense to me. The last time they ran the tests for the new rifle. the M4 failed the reliability test yet it was the one picked. Who is making these crazy decisions ?
help me out it doesn't make sense to me. The last time they ran the tests for the new rifle. the M4 failed the reliability test yet it was the one picked. Who is making these crazy decisions ?
Re: Army buys rights to M4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hank440</div><div class="ubbcode-body">help me out it doesn't make sense to me. The last time they ran the tests for the new rifle. the M4 failed the reliability test yet it was the one picked. Who is making these crazy decisions ? </div></div>
One of Murphy's most accurate laws of combat...NEVER FORGET THAT YOUR WEAPON WAS MANUFACTURED BY THE LOWEST BIDDER!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hank440</div><div class="ubbcode-body">help me out it doesn't make sense to me. The last time they ran the tests for the new rifle. the M4 failed the reliability test yet it was the one picked. Who is making these crazy decisions ? </div></div>
One of Murphy's most accurate laws of combat...NEVER FORGET THAT YOUR WEAPON WAS MANUFACTURED BY THE LOWEST BIDDER!!!
Re: Army buys rights to M4
Think they will continue with the M4 in its current form or give it a design overhaul?
Think they will continue with the M4 in its current form or give it a design overhaul?
Re: Army buys rights to M4
When exactly did this happen?
My M4 (marked as such) is a Bushmaster.
When exactly did this happen?
My M4 (marked as such) is a Bushmaster.
Re: Army buys rights to M4
July 1, 2009
July 1, 2009
Re: Army buys rights to M4
My M4's have always been Colt's. Frankly glad to see the Hartford Horsey go down. Over priced bag of crap IMHO. I've been lucky that all of my M-4's were reliable. Didn't hurt keeping them clean and lubed. And point of fact, my last one, I'd put heads up in reliability against any rifle.
Bring on the competition. It's healthy.
Rich
My M4's have always been Colt's. Frankly glad to see the Hartford Horsey go down. Over priced bag of crap IMHO. I've been lucky that all of my M-4's were reliable. Didn't hurt keeping them clean and lubed. And point of fact, my last one, I'd put heads up in reliability against any rifle.
Bring on the competition. It's healthy.
Rich
Re: Army buys rights to M4
'Overpriced bag of crap' but all of yours were reliable and you would put your last one 'heads up against any rifle'... WTF over??
'Overpriced bag of crap' but all of yours were reliable and you would put your last one 'heads up against any rifle'... WTF over??
Re: Army buys rights to M4
Only thing I liked about the m4 was the collapsible stock. I asked a few times to have our armorer put one on an m16a4 for me and he never would. In the end I just opted for the 16 and as few gadgets as I could get away with.
Only thing I liked about the m4 was the collapsible stock. I asked a few times to have our armorer put one on an m16a4 for me and he never would. In the end I just opted for the 16 and as few gadgets as I could get away with.
Re: Army buys rights to M4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jay6ird</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 'Overpriced bag of crap' but all of yours were reliable and you would put your last one 'heads up against any rifle'... WTF over?? </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jay6ird</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 'Overpriced bag of crap' but all of yours were reliable and you would put your last one 'heads up against any rifle'... WTF over?? </div></div>
Re: Army buys rights to M4
it seems somewhere a VA shrink is missing his patient
it seems somewhere a VA shrink is missing his patient
Re: Army buys rights to M4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hank440</div><div class="ubbcode-body">July 1, 2009</div></div>
Sorry I should have been more specific.
Should have typed "When did Colt have sole licensing to make them? My Bushmaster is factory-marked with the M4 designation."
And just for clarification, yes I'm talking about a military-issue, select-fire weapon:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hank440</div><div class="ubbcode-body">July 1, 2009</div></div>
Sorry I should have been more specific.
Should have typed "When did Colt have sole licensing to make them? My Bushmaster is factory-marked with the M4 designation."
And just for clarification, yes I'm talking about a military-issue, select-fire weapon:
Re: Army buys rights to M4
They would sell the manufacturing rights to companys. As if it where a group effort. Colt couldn't make all the m4's that the services required. So yes they where M4's but made buy other companys under purchesed rights from Colt.
They would sell the manufacturing rights to companys. As if it where a group effort. Colt couldn't make all the m4's that the services required. So yes they where M4's but made buy other companys under purchesed rights from Colt.
Re: Army buys rights to M4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ghost3x7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So how long until Colt is in recievership this time? Place your bets gentlemen.</div></div>
I am leaning toward putting my money on Cerbus, their recent jockeying to get Bushmaster, DPMS, and Remington all into bed together may have had something to do with chasing a military contract.. but that is purely speculation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ghost3x7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So how long until Colt is in recievership this time? Place your bets gentlemen.</div></div>
I am leaning toward putting my money on Cerbus, their recent jockeying to get Bushmaster, DPMS, and Remington all into bed together may have had something to do with chasing a military contract.. but that is purely speculation
Re: Army buys rights to M4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Armed Ferret</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hank440</div><div class="ubbcode-body">July 1, 2009</div></div>
Sorry I should have been more specific.
Should have typed "When did Colt have sole licensing to make them? My Bushmaster is factory-marked with the M4 designation."
And just for clarification, yes I'm talking about a military-issue, select-fire weapon:
</div></div>
Interesting you have a rifle marked M4. If I am not mistaken bushmaster marked there guns as M4's for a while until colt successfully sued them for trademark/copyright violation or something like that. That is why there rifles are now designated differently. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Armed Ferret</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hank440</div><div class="ubbcode-body">July 1, 2009</div></div>
Sorry I should have been more specific.
Should have typed "When did Colt have sole licensing to make them? My Bushmaster is factory-marked with the M4 designation."
And just for clarification, yes I'm talking about a military-issue, select-fire weapon:
Interesting you have a rifle marked M4. If I am not mistaken bushmaster marked there guns as M4's for a while until colt successfully sued them for trademark/copyright violation or something like that. That is why there rifles are now designated differently. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Re: Army buys rights to M4
Actually, I believe Colt lost that suit against Bushmaster. It was a while ago so my memory may be failing me.
john
Actually, I believe Colt lost that suit against Bushmaster. It was a while ago so my memory may be failing me.
john
Re: Army buys rights to M4
Alot of people talk about how the M-16/M-4 are such crap but i cant help but to think that its a fine weapon with only two significant issues that merely a design change would fix. The first one being the gas operating system. Sure it works, but there are better systems out there now and it would be an easy fix. Secondly is the cartridge, though its downfall is not its design. Its employer just chose unwisely and now because of Nato we really dont have much other choices aside from the 7.62.
Alot of people talk about how the M-16/M-4 are such crap but i cant help but to think that its a fine weapon with only two significant issues that merely a design change would fix. The first one being the gas operating system. Sure it works, but there are better systems out there now and it would be an easy fix. Secondly is the cartridge, though its downfall is not its design. Its employer just chose unwisely and now because of Nato we really dont have much other choices aside from the 7.62.
Re: Army buys rights to M4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cavscout1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only thing I liked about the m4 was the collapsible stock. I asked a few times to have our armorer put one on an m16a4 for me and he never would. In the end I just opted for the 16 and as few gadgets as I could get away with. </div></div>
You should be glad he did not put one on you A4 , Its an illegal modification to you weapon. Can also have adverse affects on your weapon.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cavscout1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only thing I liked about the m4 was the collapsible stock. I asked a few times to have our armorer put one on an m16a4 for me and he never would. In the end I just opted for the 16 and as few gadgets as I could get away with. </div></div>
You should be glad he did not put one on you A4 , Its an illegal modification to you weapon. Can also have adverse affects on your weapon.
Re: Army buys rights to M4
LARMIKE, I don't think I follow you, how would putting a M4 stock on a M16A4 have adverse affects to the weapon? Would it have to do with the different buffer springs and buffers? I'm sure there is a way to mix and match to get it right to function reliably.
Also, I've heard before that doing so is an illegal modification to the weapon but how so? is there actual regs that state that? Not doubting you, just looking for some actual proof other than he said she said kind of info. Reason I ask is that I've always thought it would be a great idea, best of both worlds in my mind, especially for a designated marksman
LARMIKE, I don't think I follow you, how would putting a M4 stock on a M16A4 have adverse affects to the weapon? Would it have to do with the different buffer springs and buffers? I'm sure there is a way to mix and match to get it right to function reliably.
Also, I've heard before that doing so is an illegal modification to the weapon but how so? is there actual regs that state that? Not doubting you, just looking for some actual proof other than he said she said kind of info. Reason I ask is that I've always thought it would be a great idea, best of both worlds in my mind, especially for a designated marksman
Re: Army buys rights to M4
If the holy one does get away with the TARPA take-over of Smith and Wesson - you may see them being built by S&W...
I had an M16 that was made by Government Motors (Then General Motors) - best damn one I ever had- well broken in as it was my basic training rifle but highly accurate and never jammed - not once...that was in 1983 so it was probably a 1970's vintge.
So competition is healthy, the specs and QA are pretty tight....
Love to get a colt M4 but alas this state won't allow it.
If the holy one does get away with the TARPA take-over of Smith and Wesson - you may see them being built by S&W...
I had an M16 that was made by Government Motors (Then General Motors) - best damn one I ever had- well broken in as it was my basic training rifle but highly accurate and never jammed - not once...that was in 1983 so it was probably a 1970's vintge.
So competition is healthy, the specs and QA are pretty tight....
Love to get a colt M4 but alas this state won't allow it.
Re: Army buys rights to M4
LARMIKE- Thank you for the info... was not aware that it would effect reliability if you used the right combo of buffer/spring..
for those that were questioning LARMIKE, either directly or just curiousity- http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/05/army_m16_stocks_052009/
any word on the H6 buffer fielding? will there be a civilian equivalent for purchase?
LARMIKE- Thank you for the info... was not aware that it would effect reliability if you used the right combo of buffer/spring..
for those that were questioning LARMIKE, either directly or just curiousity- http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/05/army_m16_stocks_052009/
any word on the H6 buffer fielding? will there be a civilian equivalent for purchase?
Re: Army buys rights to M4
Thanks cavscout1983, thats a pretty good little article, I'm glad that the brass is working on a solution to it. The way I understand it the buffer spring on the M4 is heavier to help deal with the faster BCG movement due to the carbine gas tube system, so putting that spring in a full sized rifle would be expected to cause issues. However its a problem that should be easily remedied, so like the article says, they should have a solution in the near future.
Thanks cavscout1983, thats a pretty good little article, I'm glad that the brass is working on a solution to it. The way I understand it the buffer spring on the M4 is heavier to help deal with the faster BCG movement due to the carbine gas tube system, so putting that spring in a full sized rifle would be expected to cause issues. However its a problem that should be easily remedied, so like the article says, they should have a solution in the near future.
