US Army say goodbye Colt, and hello Remington!

[shooter521]

I'm betting that the contract guns will be Bushmasters with the Remington name on the receivers.

"Bushmaster" rifles are built by Remington in Ilion, NY, just like these M4s will be.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

"Bushmaster" rifles are built by Remington in Ilion, NY, just like these M4s will be.

Yup, that's where all those Bushmaster M4s in Georgia came from.

This is no big deal. Lots of people have made and are currently making the M16 and its variants, even General Motors and . . . Canadians.

Remington won the deal for this latest batch. No big whoop.

 

[MeatyBacchus]

The military ordered 120,000 total. Remington only got 24,000.

I would get the reason is to drive the Colt price down or Colt couldn't spit enough out fast enough.

Either way - Remington ARs that I've seen - in no way compare to the 6920.

 

[sporter]

Bushmaster/Remington....oh boy.

 

[wetidlerjr]

Yup, that's where all those Bushmaster M4s in Georgia came from.
This is no big deal. Lots of people have made and are currently making the M16 and its variants, even General Motors and . . . Canadians.
Remington won the deal for this latest batch. No big whoop.

The above is the only sensible comment in this thread.

 

[singlesix]

I don't know who made my M-16, handgaurd had a Mattel stamp, but it functioned great during Desert Storm. As other said, who cares long as it is made to specs.

 

[Dwight D]

First rifle I was ever issued in the USMC was labeled GM Hydromatic Division. It was an A1 and shot just fine. So my point is this, if it is made to spec. that is more important then who makes it.

 

[jayhawk]

The military ordered 120,000 total. Remington only got 24,000.

I would get the reason is to drive the Colt price down or Colt couldn't spit enough out fast enough.

Either way - Remington ARs that I've seen - in no way compare to the 6920.

They are making ARs based on Colt's design spec, aka a government owned TDP.

The 120,000 is on an IDIQ contract (awarded to Remington), which stands for Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity. That only means that the government can award delivery orders for up to 120,000 rifles, not that they will or necessarily have any intention to.

 

[wally05]

M4s in service are definitely getting worn out. I've seen some interesting pics of in service m4s looking like they are held together by a shoestring and a prayer. It's good to see another 120,000 being brought in. If Remington makes them to SPEC, and not like the bushmasters I've seen with improperly indexed gas tubes, non-stakes gas keys, etc.

 

[lucky4034]

The military ordered 120,000 total. Remington only got 24,000.

I would get the reason is to drive the Colt price down or Colt couldn't spit enough out fast enough.

Either way - Remington ARs that I've seen - in no way compare to the 6920.

The big question is ... whats the rush?

Iran possibly?

 

[Socomike]

They are making ARs based on Colt's design spec, aka a government owned TDP.

The 120,000 is on an IDIQ contract (awarded to Remington), which stands for Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity. That only means that the government can award delivery orders for up to 120,000 rifles, not that they will or necessarily have any intention to.

That is the key here. Remington will be forced to use the government owned TDP to build the rifles. They will come out exactly as the Colt rifles are with a different rollmark. If they dont, they will be forced to fix them or hand the money back.

Just because the commercial version of the R15 doesn't compare to the 6920, doesn't mean the mil versions of the Remington is going to vary as vastly from the colt version and it is like comparing apples to door knobs.

As far as NEEDING new rifles, maybe not. However, I had the same rifle from 2004-2009. It started as a new in box, 0 round count Colt M4 (Serial W014075...god I miss it). When I left, the finish was worn on every hard corner all the way to shiny metal. The barrel/bolt/FCG all had between 15K-20K and only small things had been replaced like gas rings, extractor, etc. Some of the shiny surfaces would begin to rust if kept in a wet field environment with no means of cleaning for any extended period of time. The barrel was measurably less accurate than the first 5-8K rounds. The rifle needed rebuilt. I dont know what the government pays to re-barrel/ refinish/ rebuild an M4, but it may be cost prohibitive if you can buy new rifles for 650$ and surplus the older ones to other countries (Iraq/Afg) for a discounted price the way they are now.

 

[netsecurity]

Why do we need new m4's when we're ending the wars though? This is shocking and strange news. My gut feeling is also that Remington production capacity s being tested/groomed for future production of their new ACR.

The price sounds the same as every Colt contract I've read about. So maybe Colt is too tied up on the M249 contract, which used to belong exclusively to FN, from what I read. Maybe this is all just a shift to US manufacturers now that we're not in a high pressure war.

 

[LPMan59]

The US Government has always used different suppliers when the main contract holder could not meet demand. The M1 and M1911 are prime examples. And as for the TDP, Colt owns it, not the government.

I wonder if the Freedom Group fanboys will start clamoring for mil-spec rifles now that Remington will be making them. lolz

 

[Socomike]

Why do we need new m4's when we're ending the wars though? This is shocking and strange news. My gut feeling is also that Remington production capacity s being tested/groomed for future production of their new ACR.

The price sounds the same as every Colt contract I've read about. So maybe Colt is too tied up on the M249 contract, which used to belong exclusively to FN, from what I read. Maybe this is all just a shift to US manufacturers now that we're not in a high pressure war.

Just because we are not in a war (even though we are for at least the next few years) the Military, as a whole, still needs serviceable rifles. The M4s in service now are at the end of their life cycle and need major rebuilds.

I think the ACR is FAR from being selected as a service rifle. Why pay a premium for it, when you can pay 650 bucks for a M4 that dies everything the ACR will do. SOCOM tested the SCAR L and decided that it wasnt worth the cost over the M4. What could the ACR offer over the SCAR? The barrel changing thing is out because the government doesnt care to use any other round than the 5.56.

I think the Government wanted new M4's. They decided that they could get them cheaper than what Colt was offering them for. They spread the contract around and lowered the price per unit. Nothing more. Nothing less. Good business move.

This is all my opinion of course.

 

[netsecurity]

You could be right Mike. But we should now have about twice as many m4's as we have soldiers, and recruitment levels are lowered, so why nit fix the existing rifles? Maybe we are gearing up for another war. Or maybe FN is out. Not only did FN make the 240s and 249s, they made the m16s., and if American companies are now making them, that would be a good thing.

 

[lrahm]

Just because we are not in a war (even though we are for at least the next few years) the Military, as a whole, still needs serviceable rifles. The M4s in service now are at the end of their life cycle and need major rebuilds.

I think the ACR is FAR from being selected as a service rifle. Why pay a premium for it, when you can pay 650 bucks for a M4 that dies everything the ACR will do. SOCOM tested the SCAR L and decided that it wasnt worth the cost over the M4. What could the ACR offer over the SCAR? The barrel changing thing is out because the government doesnt care to use any other round than the 5.56.

I think the Government wanted new M4's. They decided that they could get them cheaper than what Colt was offering them for. They spread the contract around and lowered the price per unit. Nothing more. Nothing less. Good business move.

This is all my opinion of course.

Your opinion has probably more expertise in it than most other opinions. Thanks for the info.

 

[Leo]

In this day and age, with all the corporate cross breeding, my question is this; Are there ANY brands of production AR's that are made completely by a single maker? Everyone I have owned personally, repaired for others, built from scratch, etc, have identical looking parts for the most part. I am not talking about the multicolored, aftermarket "bling" parts, but the plain black stuff. Take a look at a Stag parts kit. Compare it to a DPMS or a Bushmaster parts kit. The parts look like they were made on the same equipment and anodized in the same tanks. Other than the COLT lowers having bigger pivot pins and that stupid block over the triggers, the other brands look the same.

 

[Socomike]

You could be right Mike. But we should now have about twice as many m4's as we have soldiers, and recruitment levels are lowered, so why nit fix the existing rifles? Maybe we are gearing up for another war. Or maybe FN is out. Not only did FN make the 240s and 249s, they made the m16s., and if American companies are now making them, that would be a good thing.

Im not sure how many M4s we have in service. Could you give me a link to see that number (not being a smart ass, genuinely interested). I would say that a large percentage of the original contract of M4s from Colt are deadlined, destroyed, or at the end of their lifestyle.

Again, I dont know what it cost for Colt to have a rifle refinished and rebuilt. Im guessing that the cost is to close to getting an all new rifle. Plus, we have a few of our "pet" countries that are willing to pay a discounted price for our used M4's to replace their AK's from the 50s.

With wars winding down (hopefully), recruitment numbers down, and the force being downsized, my guess is they are looking to influx a huge amount of brand new M4s with the idea that they will be the rifles to carry our military for years to come while we are not engaged in a war (therefore lower firing schedules and longer service lives).

Again, this is just a guess based on my limited experience.

 

[IndyGunner]

lowest bidder, nuff said.

 

[CSORuger]

That about $673.47 for each M4. Bradis could have sold it to them for less!