US Army say goodbye Colt, and hello Remington!

[Socomike]

Bradis coulnt have sold them 15K+ nor would they have been select fire. I also have not seen a Bushmaster/Remington for that price. Delton sure. 675 is a pretty good price for a high quality, select fire rifle.

 

[jayhawk]

And as for the TDP, Colt owns it, not the government.

That could be, but it's kind of a moot point if other manufacturers can get on the approval list to use it.

tangent >
This type of thing happens in my industry all the time, sometimes by design other times not. My company actually used to develop products for DLA (back when we could get sole source approval through DSCP). Why develop a product that is just going to end up available for open bid...makes no sense. It's kind of a weird thing, in an effort to find the lowest bidder and/or increase supply they remove all incentive to do any R&D.
On the other hand, there are companies like SPS Technologies that have sole source approval and have year long lead times on basic hardware. It's good to be SPS.

 

[Fordtough25]

Bradis coulnt have sold them 15K+ nor would they have been select fire. I also have not seen a Bushmaster/Remington for that price. Delton sure. 675 is a pretty good price for a high quality, select fire rifle.

 

[shooter521]

That could be, but it's kind of a moot point if other manufacturers can get on the approval list to use it.

The TDP remains Colt proprietary information, but the .gov now has the ability to use it to award second-source contracts. Those companies must sign non-disclosure/non-use agreements (meaning the TDP data cannot be used for commercial sales), and the Army must pay Colt a royalty for every rifle procured through a second source.

What is the "TDP?" « Vuurwapen Blog

 

[bcannon]

My buddy picked one up somewhere but its not a bad rifle, feels a little generic, shoots straight. It doesn't like reloads but operates fine with hornaday. He paid $625 new so doesn't sound all bad. Somebody at colt stepped on someones toes

 

[Alamo]

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

I googled around trying to find the contract or RFP documents online, but no luck yet. I wanted to see what was actually included.

The contract may specify that certain things be delivered with the primary product; for example, besides the basic rifle, there may be a requirement that each rifle be delivered with a sling, one or more magazines, a cleaning kit, mounts for optical sights, and/or whatever other gizmos the Army decided should be delivered with each rifle. If this is so, then the price above (since it is the total cost divided by number of rifles) would include those gizmos and be an even better deal.

Or it may be just the basic rifle, since the Army may have or probably has separate contracts for mags, slings, etc, being that there the M4 has been around so long and there are so many of them.

Hard to tell without the actual contract documents, and those don't appear to be online yet. There must have been an RFP or RFQ some place, but I can't find it either.

p.s. I also saw that Fiskars got an award the same day for some kind of combat knife, but could not figure out exactly which knife it was...

 

[4PWW9]

The Remington award is not to replace Colt, it is in addition too awards already held by Colt and FN. The Govt has been trying to find a third supplier for some time now, since Sabre Defense was shut down a couple of years back. Aside from the legal mess Sabre got themselves into, they were never able to deliver many guns towards the contract they were awarded. The selection process for this current award had everything to do with "best value" meaning quality, on-time delivery and cost, not so much low bid. Getting signed off on an award like this is tough, meeting the production schedule alone takes most companies out consideration. Colt & FN have both been awarded additional M16 M4 and M240 contracts in the past few months as well. I attended the Individual Carbine conference in Washington DC last May and the PM for Small Arms said the Army is not going to stop buying M4s anytime soon, regardless of any new contracts for a Individual Carbine replacement.
Could it be the Army is giving Colt a little room for capacity to make the new ICs????? Colt Defense did just break ground on a new plant in Florida.

 

[M67]

I thought Red Jacket was going to supply everything for the military?

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Well, Colt has been having UNION issues as well.

 

[Destro]

I thought Red Jacket was going to supply everything for the military?

they've been looking to open up that new market with their game changers for quite awhile....30,000+ .30 ammo can guns are first i think

 

[Ted]

The big question is ... whats the rush?

Iran possibly?

For Iran, it would be more appropriate for them to experience a product from Los Alamos.

 

[03A3]

There's no good reason that Remington can't build a proper M4, and I hope they do. In the grand scheme of things (thinking a WWII-type scenario) the more proven manufacturers the better.
And if they want to stash even more firearms ect in bunkers all over Country/World I'm all for it.
Having to replace tens of thousands of rifles/carbines due to normal attrition is part of it.

 

[wetidlerjr]

Well, Colt has been having UNION issues as well.

Colt has had no recent union problems.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Colt has had no recent union problems.

Really, explain this then.

Colt Defense Employees Get New 2-year Contract in Final Hours of Negotiations - Gun News at Guns.com

 

[Kenny87ky]

I thought Red Jacket was going to supply everything for the military?

Nah, Red Jacket is primarily focused on AK rifles and the usa won't go there you know. The taliban might be interested, and will their current QC the guns would be like the instant explode grenades some countries use/did use, that would instantly explode when the pin was pulled, in the event a enemy seized a stash and tried to use them(can not find a link about these things, I know it was done though).

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Nah, Red Jacket is primarily focused on AK rifles and the usa won't go there you know. The taliban might be interested, and will their current QC the guns would be like the instant explode grenades some countries use/did use, that would instantly explode when the pin was pulled, in the event a enemy seized a stash and tried to use them(can not find a link about these things, I know it was done though).

Can you build a better AK?

 

[RBrianHarless]

I believe the Remington's will be fine. Not sure why this appears to be an issue? Save the tax payers some money and still get a high quality product. Sounds like a win/win to me.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The Army has also changed its policy on weapons for troops "outside the wire". Aircrews outside of SOCOM used to be restricted to the M9, but that policy changed sometime during GWII. All aircrews not using the M240B (as an aircraft weapon) were being issued an M4 (this meant primarily pilots were getting M4s). Whether the Army decides to change MTOEs to incorporate the M4 into aviation units, all those M4s that deployed with aircrews will need to be refurbished and repaired.

 

[Kenny87ky]

Can you build a better AK?

maybe, maybe not, but I have no interest in doing so either, neither do I advertise or try to sell guns or provide services claiming I can do these things, but if your in the business of making guns you should do at least an acceptable job, recently looking at some of their firearms has me wondering.

 

[Airborne33]

How has this discussion gone from M4 to AK? Remington makes a fine rifle. The Army will save some money, hopefully making this type of budget cuts means less personnel cuts.