PDA

View Full Version : UA Army looking to replace M4 - Colt may be SOL


bartt
05-26-2011, 6:00 PM
Here is an interesting article I just saw, stating that the Army is looking for a replacement for the M4 and Colt may be just another contender..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/25/colt-outs-defense-department-opens-bids-combat-rifles/
Wonder if this will mean anything to the AR15 market in the future?

MUKAK
05-26-2011, 6:04 PM
dont worry ur AR will still shoot n kill

:D

smle-man
05-26-2011, 6:05 PM
Colt already had to hand over the engineering drawings on the M4 to FN by order of the government so their lock on the M4 market is broken. Colt probably won't survive but not just because of losing the M4 monopoly.

Crowesnest
05-26-2011, 6:26 PM
Ultimately, the lowest cost product may wind up being the military's choice of rifle. Sounds cynical, but having worked with the government, contracts almost always come down to who can provide the least expensive product, and not necessarily the best quality product.

Colt-45
05-26-2011, 7:17 PM
If Colt produced as much as the market demands they wouldn't have any problems. I know plenty of people WAITING for 2011 production Colts, and I'm not talking special editions just ordinary Colts. A lot of people go with other companies because the Colt they want is not in stock.

nrvnqsrxk
05-26-2011, 7:30 PM
Due to the way decisions are made in the military, people aren't really concerned with the M4 going anywhere anytime soon. Attribute it to the inefficiencies of bureaucracy.

Seiran
05-26-2011, 9:55 PM
This makes what? The 500th time the Army has said it's going to replace the M16/M4 platform? *laughs*

Yea, don't get your hopes up. Stoner's baby isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.

bohoki
05-26-2011, 10:25 PM
i'm betting that colt could sell as many revolvers as they could make if they kept the price equal to smith and wesson

MrPlink
05-26-2011, 11:18 PM
Colt already had to hand over the engineering drawings on the M4 to FN by order of the government

a formality at best Im sure.
Im sure FN knows damn well how to make a M4

Tyrant
05-26-2011, 11:21 PM
This makes what? The 500th time the Army has said it's going to replace the M16/M4 platform? *laughs*

Yea, don't get your hopes up. Stoner's baby isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.

+1 Although I do believe I have heard this more than 500 times

Colt-45
05-26-2011, 11:22 PM
i'm betting that colt could sell as many revolvers as they could make if they kept the price equal to smith and wesson

They don't even have to keep the price equal to smith and wesson. Colt's problem is they don't supply the high demand. People that aren't Colt fan boys walk into a gun store ask for a Colt, if it's not in stock they end up buying the platform they want from another brand. Recent Colt's you almost always have to order. I've been to many gun stores and to be honest I rarely see brand new Colt pistols in stock.

dustoff31
05-26-2011, 11:33 PM
Ultimately, the lowest cost product may wind up being the military's choice of rifle. Sounds cynical, but having worked with the government, contracts almost always come down to who can provide the least expensive product, and not necessarily the best quality product.

Yep. MILSPEC = Lowest possible cost, minimum acceptable quality.

morfeeis
05-27-2011, 6:21 AM
They keep looking for something more reliable and hard hitting, why dont they simply switch to the AK ?? lol
they want to be able to hit what they are shooting at past 50 yards though :angel:

kidding........

goodlookin1
05-27-2011, 6:21 AM
They keep looking for something more reliable and hard hitting, why dont they simply switch to the AK ?? lol

The arabs certainly couldnt call our rifles "Jesus rifles" anymore, could they?

Lead Waster
05-27-2011, 10:02 AM
a formality at best Im sure.
Im sure FN knows damn well how to make a M4

yeah no kidding! It's like handing over the designs for a spork or something. Every part is made by many machine shops all over the US. Lowers, uppers, barrels, BCGs, etc, etc.

It is probably just some legal copyright/trademark/patent thing.

Also, from the article:

"Colt received a no-bid contract in 1994 for the M4, a shorter and lighter version of the M16. Colt has been the military's only source of M4s ever since. In the late 1990s"

I mean wow, almost 20 years of an exclusive NO BID contract.

1911su16b870
05-27-2011, 10:10 AM
I have read that Colt spent a ton of money developing the M4. The .gov took the M16 from Colt due to their involvement in the development, but the M4 is Colts.

RealBarber
05-27-2011, 10:12 AM
what about the Colt CM901?

SMGLee
05-27-2011, 10:14 AM
Colt already had to hand over the engineering drawings on the M4 to FN by order of the government so their lock on the M4 market is broken. Colt probably won't survive but not just because of losing the M4 monopoly.

that is misinformation at best.....

Colt hand over the M16 TDP to FN to be manufactured, but FN is contractually bind to sell only to the US gov't. Colt still owns the M16 TDP, the TDP is just on loan to FN for the contract which FN won. and that is why a royalty is required on every M16 produced by FN payable to Colt.

Colt will and forever own the M4 TDP, but the open source purchase could change the vender providing the M4 to the Gov't. Since Colt has ran out of its 20 year hold on the design so as of 2010, the M4 has become an open source purchase much like the M16 was back then.

the lock on the M4 market is broken, but it is anyone's game, Colt, Daniel defense, S&W and FN are all player in bidding for the next batch of M4s. and that is only valid up until the gov't decided to select a new carbine or upgrade the system.

up until 2010, colt has a purchase order to build 400k M4. once that PO is fulfilled, I believe the open sourcing game will begin.

Just a side note, KAC RAS supplied to the military are no longer made by KAC. those are now a new manufacture in the game to provide the RAS to the Gov't. but civilian market is still own by KAC.


Colt CM901 is only able to provide Colt with an offering for the upcoming new carbine selection, it has nothing to do with the current M4 purchases.

luckystrike
05-27-2011, 10:58 AM
eh I really dont mind. they need to get over themselves and quit their "extra $300-$700 just for our name" crap.

tacticalcity
05-27-2011, 11:12 AM
The media has been running the same story once year ever since the M4 came out. And every single time you guys buy into it hook line and sinker.

The military is continually evaluating new weapon systems to see if they might want to adopt them. In order to make it fair, they tell the manufacturers what requirements they need to even consider it as a replacement to existing systems. They let the manufactures decide whether or not it is worth developing such a weapon system on the off chance the military will buy it. But they also keep civilian sales a goal since the military makes no promises. Year after year, companies design new rifles hoping to be the next M4. Year after year the military passes (with the rare exception that they allow specialized units to buy them in small numbers if they so choose).

Most of these rifles get marketed to the general public as "they future replacement to the M4". They get away with this because they usually release them while the rifle is still somewhere in the evaluation process. Usually they already know the military is going to pass, but they don't mention that in their marketing materials. The ACR and XCR are perfect examples.

The companies that make them even claim that they are the future replacement for the M4 that are "being evaluated by special operations" forces. Which is a major stretch. Yes certain units are authorized to use them. But it is not a path to the eventual service wide adoption of the weapon system. That ship already sailed.

That said, they can resubmit the same weapon system for future evaluation provided the military's requirements do not change significantly or that they can be modified to meet any new requirements the military has. So you might see them being considered several years in a row. However, the odds are not in that weapon systems favor.

Don't get too excited. The military is not really in a hurry to replace the M4. They are just pretending they are. If they came right out and said there was no actual chance in hell it would be replaced, the manufacturer's would not participate in the process. In which case the industry would remain stagnant. Which is not in our national interest.

r6raff
05-27-2011, 11:58 AM
The arabs certainly couldnt call our rifles "Jesus rifles" anymore, could they?

Just throw an ACOG on it.

r6raff
05-27-2011, 12:00 PM
They keep looking for something more reliable and hard hitting, why dont they simply switch to the AK ?? lol

So is a rock:eek: I rather hit something more frequently. CQB i'd hip an AK no doubt, beyond that i'll take my AR thankyaverymuch

RMTactical
05-27-2011, 12:04 PM
The media has been running the same story once year ever since the M4 came out. And every single time you guys buy into it hook line and sinker.

The military is continually evaluating new weapon systems to see if they might want to adopt them. In order to make it fair, they tell the manufacturers what requirements they need to even consider it as a replacement to existing systems. They let the manufactures decide whether or not it is worth developing such a weapon system on the off chance the military will buy it. But they also keep civilian sales a goal since the military makes no promises. Year after year, companies design new rifles hoping to be the next M4. Year after year the military passes (with the rare exception that they allow specialized units to buy them in small numbers if they so choose).

Most of these rifles get marketed to the general public as "they future replacement to the M4". They get away with this because they usually release them while the rifle is still somewhere in the evaluation process. Usually they already know the military is going to pass, but they don't mention that in their marketing materials. The ACR and XCR are perfect examples.

The companies that make them even claim that they are the future replacement for the M4 that are "being evaluated by special operations" forces. Which is a major stretch. Yes certain units are authorized to use them. But it is not a path to the eventual service wide adoption of the weapon system. That ship already sailed.

That said, they can resubmit the same weapon system for future evaluation provided the military's requirements do not change significantly or that they can be modified to meet any new requirements the military has. So you might see them being considered several years in a row. However, the odds are not in that weapon systems favor.

Don't get too excited. The military is not really in a hurry to replace the M4. They are just pretending they are. If they came right out and said there was no actual chance in hell it would be replaced, the manufacturer's would not participate in the process. In which case the industry would remain stagnant. Which is not in our national interest.

Spot on!

Inquirer
05-27-2011, 5:57 PM
Old news on the M4 replacement. Between the SCAR, the ACR, the XCR, and the 416, there are plenty of other options out there.

I'd be more intrigued to see what the change in cartridge is looking like. The Army may spend a lot on guns, but I'm pretty damned sure they spend a lot more on ammo. If they do phase out 5.56 in favor of something a little harder-hitting like the 6.8mm, it'll be nice to be able to buy Surplus .223 at Yugo 5.45 prices. And it'll be worth buying stock in whoever's cartridge gets chosen.

--Inq

javalos
05-27-2011, 8:47 PM
I don't know how many times through the years I've seen articles about the U.S. Army wanting to replace the M-4 and accepting bids. Eventually it will happen, but not now.

vintagearms
05-27-2011, 8:55 PM
The media has been running the same story once year ever since the M4 came out. And every single time you guys buy into it hook line and sinker.

The military is continually evaluating new weapon systems to see if they might want to adopt them. In order to make it fair, they tell the manufacturers what requirements they need to even consider it as a replacement to existing systems. They let the manufactures decide whether or not it is worth developing such a weapon system on the off chance the military will buy it. But they also keep civilian sales a goal since the military makes no promises. Year after year, companies design new rifles hoping to be the next M4. Year after year the military passes (with the rare exception that they allow specialized units to buy them in small numbers if they so choose).

Most of these rifles get marketed to the general public as "they future replacement to the M4". They get away with this because they usually release them while the rifle is still somewhere in the evaluation process. Usually they already know the military is going to pass, but they don't mention that in their marketing materials. The ACR and XCR are perfect examples.

The companies that make them even claim that they are the future replacement for the M4 that are "being evaluated by special operations" forces. Which is a major stretch. Yes certain units are authorized to use them. But it is not a path to the eventual service wide adoption of the weapon system. That ship already sailed.

That said, they can resubmit the same weapon system for future evaluation provided the military's requirements do not change significantly or that they can be modified to meet any new requirements the military has. So you might see them being considered several years in a row. However, the odds are not in that weapon systems favor.

Don't get too excited. The military is not really in a hurry to replace the M4. They are just pretending they are. If they came right out and said there was no actual chance in hell it would be replaced, the manufacturer's would not participate in the process. In which case the industry would remain stagnant. Which is not in our national interest.

THIS exactly.

AJAX22
05-27-2011, 10:17 PM
Colt is in trouble for a whole host of different reasons.

If they are not bankrupt in the next two years I will be very surprised.

THT
05-27-2011, 10:20 PM
Ultimately, the lowest cost product may wind up being the military's choice of rifle. Sounds cynical, but having worked with the government, contracts almost always come down to who can provide the least expensive product, and not necessarily the best quality product.

Then how do you explain the KAC M110? :D

MrPlink
05-28-2011, 12:25 AM
Then how do you explain the KAC M110? :D

political maneuvering and other gov chicanery ;)

corrupt
05-28-2011, 12:28 AM
Pfft, everyone knows the money is in the consumer market, not government. If losing an army contract is going to break them then they're already in trouble for other reasons.

ZX-10R
05-28-2011, 6:08 AM
They should replace it with an improved AK design.

shooterdude
05-28-2011, 6:09 AM
Ultimately, the lowest cost product may wind up being the military's choice of rifle. Sounds cynical, but having worked with the government, contracts almost always come down to who can provide the least expensive product, and not necessarily the best quality product.

This is BS and urban legend. How do you explain the use of special weapons by specific units? Certain special ops teams use Sigs, HK, etc. If it were really about the least expensive product then our soldiers would be carrying Hi-points, LOL!

Nothing is bought on product price alone but packages that include parts and support. You can have a more expensive product and win the bid if your package is more attractive.

glock7
05-28-2011, 6:35 AM
Old news on the M4 replacement. Between the SCAR, the ACR, the XCR, and the 416, there are plenty of other options out there.

I'd be more intrigued to see what the change in cartridge is looking like. The Army may spend a lot on guns, but I'm pretty damned sure they spend a lot more on ammo. If they do phase out 5.56 in favor of something a little harder-hitting like the 6.8mm, it'll be nice to be able to buy Surplus .223 at Yugo 5.45 prices. And it'll be worth buying stock in whoever's cartridge gets chosen.

--Inq

^yes....my money is waiting for those surplus prices.:notworthy: