User Panel
Well others were tossing the lawyer thing around, which makes sense considering the title of the thread and all, but you were using the term "lobbyist", so wondered if you knew something we did not? The only person in Colt's employ that I can think of regarding the AR-15 and the term lobbyist was Bobby Macdonald. Bobby Macdonald was instrumental in getting the US Government to buy the AR-15. Of course he was contracted to do just that. This arrangement was set up over 45 years ago though. Bobby Macdonald was the guy that handed the AR-15 to General LeMay at the watermelon shoot, and the rest is history. |
||
|
The "Official M4 specifications" is MIL-C-70599A (AR), and it did not exist in 1990.
Does to me too, I read that part and have no idea what it means.
If their legal team at the time was worth a darn I would think there would be royalties involved, as there was with the original 1967 agreement.
So have I, and a few Tulsa shows prior. You did not get into an argument at Mark's table at the Spring show did you? |
||||
|
I was wrong, Ekie showed that BFI could not have had the TDP at the time of the contract as the TDP was not in the hands of .mil at that time.
Not saying they were built to the milspec hoss, saying that maybe those 65 rifles were really XM15E2S but called "M4s" or intended to be used as "M4s" at the time of the sale and these decidedely not M4s are the 65 M4s mentioned.
Guess we'll see in '09 |
|||
|
Well, I did some more digging, and there was a M4 Milspec in 1990. There was a M4 milspec as far back as 01 April 1987.
|
|
I think it is truly sad when two gun manufacturers fight each other instead of guncontrol and all its BS
|
|
I knew there had to be some kind of "Official Specifications" for lack of a better term, considering we had M4's before the TDP was even released. |
|
|
So it will be safe to say that Colt's lawsuit against HK's original naming of the 416 a dead issue.
|
|
Good question. |
|
|
Dammit, I haven't had time to check into this, if my memory is correct the Navy (or some sub bureau thereof) had a hand in releasing the TDP and the BFI contract stems from that. The TDP was also improperly released to FN and several others companies in the late 90's. ETA, just checked the files, it was the Navy involved in the release to FN and other companies in the 90s. I am mixing up two stories. |
|
|
I have been reading this thread from page one and the same Colt bashers offer their opinions about how terrible Colt is and how awful the law suit was even though they really do not even have part of the picture. Let me remind you that this is Colt's gun. All of these are Colt's guns. All these rifles were designed by Colt that these other manufacturers produce. It is true that some of the development was paid for by the government and others were paid by Colt. How would you feel as a buisiness if you invested time, resources and money into a project only to have others reverse engineer your product and sell it cheaper. Of course cheeper because there were no R&D costs? Then make claims they were mil-spec when they do not have access to the document that has those specification. The M4 in particular is just that. The government did not pay for the R&D, that is the main reason for the sole source. So all these other companies make mints off of your work. Now when a company decides to fight back they are a piece of shit and how dare they and you hope they go under.
It amazes me the comments made here on Bushmasters so called government contract. Not one posting on any board on AR15.com has ever posted any proof of this so-called contract. NO PROOF. Bushmaster did sell some gun. THey were not mil-spec and they were a disaster. THey would not interchange with existing Colt weapons because they were not made to the TDP specs and there is documentation stating this. And to add even more insult to injuery members of this board claim to have seen Bushmaster carbines in U.S. military inventory. This is even more assanine due to the fact those 65 carbines had lower receivers manufactured by Eagle Arms, there were never any Property of U.S. Govt marked Bushmaster lower receivers. If there were you could guarantee Bushmaster would have plastered pictures of them everyware over the last decadea dn would have been proud of it. So these people are full of shit. This is verifiable by ArmaLite since Westrom has the records and the serial numbers of the recevers sold for that contract. So, if a military unit runs low on toilet paper and they call up Charmin and order a few cases of Paper, Toliet, White, 1 Each to tide them over, now Charmin can claim to be a mil-spec toilet paper company who has sold to the U.S. govt? This is even though the paper was defective and it came apart when the troop would wipe his ass. Oh, and also when there is not mil-spec for the carbine since the M4/M4A1 were the first adopted M-16-type carbines ever manufactured in 1995! Those earlier carbines were commercial off the shelf Colt carbines that used many interchangable mil-spec parts but barrels, gas tubes, handguards and stock assy. It is odvious that many of you hold total discontent for Colt because you feel they do not care about the commercial market. Even given the reality we are in time of war and Colt has two shifts providing carbines for the Department of Defense. Also the fact they are produceing LEO guns for Homeland security. Colt shut down most of all their other production lines to manufacture as many carbines as possible. Hungary has been licensed to manufacture M4 carbines due to Colt not having the production capacity to equip another nations armed forces while it's own country is at war on two fronts and you think they should be catering to the commercial market. Of course in your limited view Bushmaster, RRA and so on are the holy grail of firearms manufacturers because they are in buisiness for YOU, not the Department of Defense. So the only way Colt would be seen favorably in your eyes is to shut down military production to make civillian commercial guns. Is that responsable and in the greater interest of National Security? Colt is a Defense contractor first and foremost, moreso now than ever since the Vietnam war ended. So in reality Colt is quite diffrent from Bushmaster and these other comercial companies. Very diffrent missions. I would never tell anyone Bushmaster does not make good guns, they often due. They are priced well but they are not mil-spec. Never have and never will. Bushmaster has a very diffrent target market, Colt fills a void that these other manufactures are not and visa versa. That deserves respect, not detestment. Colt may very well return to more commercial product when these wartime contracts are met but until then they are doing the right thing. |
|
Right on... one of the guys from our little group provided technical consulting and was an expert witness in this case -- it is amazing how much speculation* about what went on and what it means there is in this thread. eta: *inaccurate guessing, ego massaging, wild ass conjecture, coincidence and bullshit. |
|
|
Ouch, I have been playing patty cake with all this Bushmaster hype. The vast majority of Bushmaster posts regarding USGI carbines is total conjecture based on Bushmaster marketing propaganda, so I have never giving it much attention. But your post cuts to the chase. The only credible source I have that has first hand information on the "Bushmaster M4 contract" was a Army Ordnance officer, also worked at Rock Island, and now in private industry. He told me in no uncertain terms that these "Bushmaster M4's" were built on Eagle Arms lowers. ETA, just noticed that you named names, my source is the same. I am hesitant to share the info I get from Westrom in that I would hate to get "cut off" for having a big mouth. |
|
|
|
According to this judge, and most the M4 is a different animal then what the US Army considers an M4. As far as the US Army is concerned the first M4 Carbines delivered for issue occurred in 1994. Carbines prior to that were such things as the Colt's M16A2 Carbine (& roll marked as such), and limited numbers of experimental M4 prototypes. Actual factory USGI M4 Carbines have a W serial number prefix, are marked US PROPERTY and are roll marked M4 Carbine.
My understanding is that this was settled out of court months ago. After a deal was agreed to the HKM4 was reintroduced as the 416.
You have the Colt's vs FN fiasco, Crane's improper use of the TDP, and Bushmaster marketing hype all jumbled up.
At least it is some documentation. I am not so sure that the Carbine listed as a XM15E2S is the same that we are discussing though.
Make that 2011. |
||||||||
|
would someone please violate the board's Code of Conduct and put
|
|
I am just getting warmed up, more in a bit......... |
|
|
Ekie
While you do make a great editorial about the discontient over Colt's lack of intrest inthe cousumer market, I seem to remember that Colt had started dropping consumer products long befor 9/11 as their business floundered with asinine management. Their silly attemps to placate the anit-gun crowd with sear blocks and shaved bayonets and so on. Once they took the blood money from the state of Conn., then all things changed, imagine a company with products that are outlawed (I may be WRONG onthis one) in the very state? Can and do they even make the AR15's or what ever they are called in Conn.? So, if Colt is primaraly JUST primarily a LEO/military defense contractor like say, General Dynamics, why would they care what the petty consumer market does? You must understand that at one time I was a BIG Colt drinker from the Poney font of flavored water. At every IPSC match for about 10 years, there I was with my completely rebuilt for reliability and competition (because of all the problems with them out of the box) 1911 Series 80 and my AR-15A2 Sporter HBAR 6600 wearing my Colt baseball cap. Today, if you shoot in Limited Ten or IDPA etc, try, try to find a Colt 1911, they are all Springfields and Kimbers making a killing off Colt's siginature gun. That is the shame that really bothers me. The rifle section is not much different where I am in what is left of south Louisiana, most AR's not Colt's. I remember when we looked DOWN on Bushy's as almost junk. Now that has changed. Bushy makes a killing on Colt's siginature rifle. How many SASS shooters are there now? I lost count. How many Colt's are out there, not that many because the are hierlooms and keepsakes, Rugar and the Italians and made a killing on Colt's siginature Pistol. How about the Dective Special 6 shot 2" snuby, S&W, Rugar and Tarus are pounding these out, I have 3 S&W J Frames, really handy and some are as lite as a letter. How about the semiautomatic high capicity handgun, Glock OWNS that one, at least Colt did not loose much with that silly All American 2000 and thankfully most readers here have never even heard of it. I loved Colt. I loved the ledgend, I loved the products. They left me, I did not leave them. If they turned the company around I'd be back. Bill |
|
My hobby is Post War infantry rifles, and as such Colt's and Izhmash products are most interesting. Old wheel guns are of no interest to me. If you guys understand the market well enough to know Colt's is going to go out of business then fine. Sounds good to me, and I don't really care. There would then be a new US infantry rifle, and my attention will then be spent on that. My interest is in infantry rifles, not Colt's. |
|
|
My intrest is in guns in general and a bit of collecting. I have the little J-Frames as they are great for concelment. I shoot a good bit of competition and paper punching as well. I would really LOVE to see Colt get back on their feet as they were in the 1970's. I just can not fathon their total misses in the consumer market. There HAS to a LOT of money there as the void has been agressively filled. And remember, a lot of what we see on the battlefield has been a result of the consumer market tinkering with firearms to make them better in various competitions, red dots, flat tops, free floats, 7.62 AR's and the list goes on. To get to the point, to keep a business afloat, you don't keep all your eggs in one basket, you have to diversify. That includes the wheel guns etc. After all, the R&D was already done on those and they had a great reputation, just make them and sell them. I think the egg thing is going to bite them in the butt, FN is snapping away. Then what, they'll come running back to us? With what? I do not want then to go away, but they frustrate me to no end. Bill |
|
|
It seems to me that the two issues are tied together in this one. Why let other peoples opinion bother you. Stupid people on both sides exasperate the situation. |
||
|
I also hope one day Colt will return to the industry as a commercial manufacturer leader. They are not what they use to be, I agree. During the Vietnam era they were able to manufacture unbelievable ammounts of M16's for the government while maintaining their entire commercial line of pistols, revolvers and commercial rifles. Times have changed. Colt's avaiability on the commercial market is majorly responsable for their major loss in commercial market share. As you stated others were looked down on in past years. As for now, I want them equiping our soldiers and police officers with the finest weapons made FIRST. When that task is done, I believe they will resume their commercial operations. I do not believ this reflects their lack of caring for the comercial market. it is prioratizing. THis commercial market is very risky right now in reguards to assault-type weapons. The Federal ban is gone yes, but what is lurking around the corner. Those guns can be one pen stroke away from being banned. These companies who survive on the commercal market could just close their doors especially if the next ban is more restrictive than the first. More finantial security in the Military and LE market at this time. But agin, the number of military and LE orders and the manufacturing capability per month numbers do not currently mesh with being able to committ vast resources to commercial sales. Colt's factory has virtually dismantled much of their commercial production space to expand M4 production due to these large government contracts as well to update their manufacturing capability. As for Mark Westrom, he has my utmost respect and confidence. He is one of the straightest arrows in this industry and well respected by both military and commercial markets. I trust his word and can call him a personal friend. |
|
|
I'd be impressed just to meet him. Bill |
|
|
What has caused all this conjecture, wild stories, and total hype is Bushmaster's marketing strategy. That strategy is what got Colt's ticked off. Bushmaster has blurred the lines between a manufacturer that has developed rifles/carbines in order to get them adopted Standard A, and then delivered said rifles/carbine in the millions, and one that makes copies of these items and passes them of as being "mil-spec" and even goes as far as saying that sure they are a Government supplier too. This marketing strategy has been a great success as evident in reading defenders of Bushmaster hype in this thread, and the courts decision.
Examples of purposely misleading Bushmaster marketing: Fighting Firearms, April 1992, page 8
Thirteen years later and we still have no documentation on that claim. page 13
"Meets and exceeds US MilSpec in all regards", hardly, pure smoke.
Riddled with factual errors lumping Bushmaster/FN/Colt's as equals in an attempt to "ride their coat tails".
Spec is to be proofed fired, something Bushmaster fails to mention, in an attempt to give you all the idea that thier barrels/bolts meet the same specs as those of USGI suppliers. SAR, January 2006, page 37
This one fooled quite a few here, so much for AR-15 buyers being "sophisticated" (as stated by Bushmaster). Fact is the P in C MP means Proofed fired. Proof firing in dangerous, expensive, and a pain, but it is done on barrels marked C MP, and not done on barrels marked B MP. Just another attempt by Bushmaster to trick the consumer into thinking MP means something else. That something else is the cheaper method Bushmaster uses. These attempts at ridding the coat tails of true US infantry rifle suppliers lead to fantastic claims. Real head way was achieved with this blurb in Duncon Long's book THE COMPLETE AR-15/M16 SOURCEBOOK, page 68:
Once the Internet got going that story was repeated & embellished until it reached it's peak most fantastic form here:
This story posted by Troy starts out with the Abu Dhabi myth and goes down hill from there. Abu Dhabi bought some Colt's M16A2 Carbines, the sale was mentioned in TBR (page 391), and then expanded into nonsense in Duncon Long's book. It was the US Government that contracted Colt's to develop a M16A2 Carbine on 12 June 1985 (Contract #DAAA21-85-C-0192) that resulted in the Colt's M4 Carbine. The Abu Dhabi sale was several years later, and of such small numbers to not be worthy of note. The rest of that story originating in FF, expanded and combined with the Abu Dhabi story from Duncon Long into a seriously twisted piece of urban myth that is only topped by the Mattel contract story in AR lore. In defence of Troy and everybody else caught in this marketing scam I too fell for it. Right after purchasing that issue of FF in 1992 I built my first M4gery from Bushmaster parts. It was only years later from info gathered from various sources that I found out that Bushmaster's story was less then truthful. Later I found out that the MP marking on a Bushmaster is a fraud. Then to top it off the carbines turned out to be Eagles, not even Bushmaster lowers. You want to know why Bartocci left Bushmaster out of BR II? Kind of odd when you consider all the other companies covered. Take a look at it, many companies are giving their own chapter, and quite a bit appears to be written by their own marketing departments. Reason is Bushmaster would not produce documentation to back their claims. Now I ain't saying that there are no Bushmasters in inventory, the odds of that are near impossible. The US Army's inventory of small arms is as complete as it is massive. There are G3, MP5, AKS74, SVD rifles, and numerous others weapons on hand. Even Ruger 77's are in inventory, they even have a NSN. Heck I was once issued a blued Remington Wing Master 870 shotgun. But there is a difference between a Standard A rifle/carbine purchased in the millions by RIA in accordance to a specific MilSpec to meet a TDP, and firearm that got into inventory by a method only God & Bushmaster seems to know, and neither of them are talking. |
|||||||
|
A true gentleman. |
|
|
You can call it hype or marketing if you want. I call it lies. Pure falsehood. |
|
|
Well, guess I am still stuck in patty cake mode here. My post is riddled with grammar errors, and misspelled words. It could also be more in depth, less choppy. Will probably take another stab at it and clean it up. But I hate to spend time on something so silly as a poser outfit like that, I mean really what other manufacturer on the planet puts fake proof marks on a barrel? What a waste of time..... |
|
|
Touche` |
||
|
Airsoft manufacturers? Even CMT marks a Barrel/Bolt as such only when it has been properly proofed and MPI tested. |
||
|
I could not agree more. It has become nothing but one blow hard collectors wet dream. |
|
|
Maybe if you just ignore it, it'll go away. |
||
|
In the case of threads after they drop to the bottom of the first page, this is often true. |
|||
|
|
That would seem to follow from the court's reasoning, but it was not part of the court's holding. It only revoked Colt's claim to the M4 trademark. |
|
|
A colt is not a true m4 either (no full auto) by spec. just a COPY of a military issued weapon. It looks like an m4 but it's not. neither is any semi auto carbine a true m4. people tend to get worked up over the silliest nonsense. |
|
|
I think he meant that carbines such as the MT6400C though roll Marked M4 CARBINE, are not "true m4 either". Nice post just the same though. |
||
|
I misunderstood then. I thought he was trying to say Colt did not make the M4/M4A1. The "model name" rollmarks in the LE and MT line are really just marketing and not nomenclature. |
||
|
fwiw I did mean the civilian avalible carbines. not mil issue. point was like said before a mt6400 is not an m4 any more than any other civ carbine. sorry for the confusion.
|
|
and FN and Norinco are better than Colt(when it comes to reliablity) there, i said it, now i am going to run for the hills!!!!!! camaro |
|||||
|
I dunno.... I once had the top cover pop off my Norinco MAK-90. But my Colt has never had the slightest malfunction of any kind. Not only that, I've never fired a group larger than a dime with it. Not even at 500 yards. |
|
|
Damn, you were doing good up to there. Firstly, I don't need your "defence" and secondly I never said BFI sold milspec anything to .mil. I'm the one who has been demanding proof they sold ANYTHING to .mil for last 8 fucking years. You forget that I've been chasing this myth for a long time and I remember when it was first starting out. I'm guilty of recently mixing up several stories bc I've been too busy to re research them. |
|
|
|
Can we expect Colt to Appeal this decision?
God, I hope so. Logic alone would say that when you own the trademark, you own the trademark This transcends gun makers |
|
+1 and the owners of a TM have a duty to protect it at risk of losing it just like any other property. If you let someone squat you just might lost your stuff. |
|
|
Have not forgotten your contributions, not at all. Would say the most famous was your posts in the AR-15 deficiencies thread. And yes you were onto the story way before I was. But was surprised that just the other day that you got FN and Bushmaster mixed up and thought that you were a victim of some Jedi mind trick. Will accept your explanation as to why, and will edit my post. |
||
|
Some other interesting facts from the decision (besides the 65 rifles to the Army, the 1999 merger attempt by Colt and the mention of AR15.com)
"Bushmaster's U.S. government purchasers consist of departments and agencies of the United States, including the Departments of Defense, State, Interior and Energy, the FBI and Customs." Page 10 of the slip copy "Colt cannot recover damages for its Lanham Act claims because it is undisputed that Colt does not have any evidence of actual consumer confusion." - i.e. nobody bought a Bushmaster thinking they had a Colt. I'm suprised Colt lost this on a motion for summary judgment (i.e. it never made it to a jury or trial). |
|
One thing I think that hurt Colt is the fact they waited so long before trademarking 'M4', before they filed suit against Bushmaster, and that it seems like they didn't file suit against the other manufacturers who use the 'M4' moniker in ads. Colt just sat on it's hands too darn long. |
||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.