Colt Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
My take from the article is that the military ordered 120,000 M4's and Remington got 24,000.

Probably not unusual when Colt can't produce the rifles quickly enough.

This was posted by EVR at AR15 and makes sense IMO:

"One of the main challenges to all AR/M16 new contract production is inability of potential manufacturers to actually make the quantities the contracts require. There really are not many makers in the US that can make 24,000 M16/M4-whatever model rifles. They have neither the tooling, nor facilities nor in-house expertise to expand and produce such numbers of guns. The Govt to its credit has expressed concern about all of these issues.

Pretty much all of the "big name" AR-makers cannot meet the contract requirements. Sure, they can make a few hundred of this or that, or even maybe a few thousand over time, but they simply do not have the capital to go forward with large contracts.

Enter Remington. Evidently the Govt believes Remington has the ability to tool, the expertise in-house to maintain and test and expand as well. It won't be easy for Remington, but at least they have the chance to comply. "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I surely hope Colt does retain the bulk of the contrect but according to the article that may not happen.

(exerpts from the article.)

The question is whether Colt retained a portion of the contract. It appears they haven’t, but it’s hard to tell from the published docume.

According to the Department of the Army’s Chief of Legislative Liaison, the Army today executed a delivery order on an existing contract to buy 24,000 M4/M4A1s worth $16,163,252.07. The order comes as line 001 on an IDIQ contract for up to 120,000 carbines worth $83,924,089.00, though U.S. Army Contracting Command lists the “Max Potential Contract Value $180,000,000.00.” The rifles will be made at Remington’s factory in Ilion, N.Y.,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I have read David Crane's article and noted that it is dated July 27, 2009. a lot can happen since then. I hope that Colt prevails this time as well. I am really concerned. Our Military should have the best and in my opinion that means Colt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
greyman I like your post.
But the article by David Crane is almost Three years old. I believe this new threat in current.


I have read David Crane's article and noted that it is dated July 27, 2009. a lot can happen since then. I hope that Colt prevails this time as well. I am really concerned. Our Military should have the best and in my opinion that means Colt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,452 Posts
I was told by a friend that he read online that Colt was told to drop civilian handgun sales or they wwould lose the contract. Anyone seen this? Would not put it past the antigun Obama regime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
I would be nervous if I was Remington. Those are some Big shoes to fill!

Remington builds the Military version of the ACR. I wonder if this is how they are going to get their feet wet in the Military puddle.

Didn't FN build the M4 too? I know they built the 249.
 

·
Colt Forum Friend
Joined
·
265 Posts
Guys Colt Mfg and Colt Defense are separate companies. We at Mfg do not make rifles and Defense does not make hand guns. Lets see where the cards fall in the long run.
Brent
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top