Quoted: What is up with this lobbyist thing? Can you name one Colt's lobbyist? Ekie No I can't name a single person worth note at Colt at all. I do own a small business and I have figured a little about how the Govt works and to operated at that level some things are obvious. I would think that if a company like Colt needed (and it does) to keep the contract that they have not lost to FN etc, they had better have someone dinning the powers that be so they are "top of mind." What do you think? It is really just where you play the game. Bushy plays the civy game it appears to me. They pamper us and palce ads for our money. We buy their guns and so on. In the end it is a coke/pepsi thingie. It is just we get more passonite about our firearms than our sodapop. Bill Remember, I have both, coke and pepsi

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.

Quoted: I'm saying it's possible that Bushmaster had the "Official M4 specifications" before their was a TDP in order to fill this government order. If M4's existed before the official TDP (Which we know they did, it just wasn't common knowledge), why couldn't Bushmaster have been given the specifications before it existed also? I know this sounds confusing; maybe I need to word this better. Great conversation by the way, I’m enjoying it. I don't really get into these TDP semantics threads very often, but I find this very interesting.

The "Official M4 specifications" is MIL-C-70599A (AR), and it did not exist in 1990.

Quoted: It seems sort of strange that the government could contract in 1990 with Bushmaster for "sixty-five carbines 'having all the physical and technical characteristics of the M4 carbine'" if there were no specs for the M4 carbine at the time.  But that's the government for you.

Does to me too, I read that part and have no idea what it means.

Quoted: You are correct on both counts.  It's super secret, but generally reported that Colt's exclusive contract expires in 2011 although Colt would still get royalties until 2050.

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.

Quoted: I've seen and talked to Mark and his wife Judy the last three times I went to the Tulsa show.

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?

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

Quoted: 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 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.

Quoted: So it will be safe to say that Colt's lawsuit against HK's original naming of the 416 a dead issue.

Good question.

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.

Quoted: It amazes me the comments made here...

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.

Quoted: 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.

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.

Here is the irrefutable proof that Bushmaster Firearms Inc had a contract to make rifles for the US Gov't.
(at least as credible as any other source of evidence I have seen to date )

Quoted: Quoted: 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 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.

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.

Quoted: So it will be safe to say that Colt's lawsuit against HK's original naming of the 416 a dead issue.

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.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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.

You have the Colt's vs FN fiasco, Crane's improper use of the TDP, and Bushmaster marketing hype all jumbled up.

Quoted: 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.

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.

Quoted: Quoted: But what would Colt do if they lost the military contract? Guess we'll see in '09

Make that 2011.

would someone please violate the board's Code of Conduct and put me this thread out of my its misery?

Quoted: would someone please violate the board's Code of Conduct and put me this thread out of my its misery?

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

Quoted: 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 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

Quoted: Quoted: 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.

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.

Quoted: 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

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.

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

Originally appearing in FF: Quality Parts Corporation/Bushmaster.......recently completed a contract with the US military for the M16A2 M4 Carbine.

Thirteen years later and we still have no documentation on that claim.

page 13

Originally appearing in FF: T&E summary...........................Well executed and reliable -- superior to all other production series M16-type rifles: meets and exceeds US MilSpec in all regards:

"Meets and exceeds US MilSpec in all regards", hardly, pure smoke.

Bushmaster Warranty: We are a U.S. Government Defense Contractor. After inspection and testing of samples for our most recent contract – the M16 A2 Carbine M4, our quality passed the most stringent U.S. military specifications. We won the contract, delivered, and were paid in full. As a matter of public record only Colt and FN can make the same claim."

Riddled with factual errors lumping Bushmaster/FN/Colt's as equals in an attempt to "ride their coat tails".

From Bushmaster's website: Ours are manufactured to mil. spec. and are magnetic particle inspected to insure against cracks or flaws that could cause catastrophic bolt failure or injury.

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

Originally appearing in SAR: The familiar "CMP" mark often seen would indicated Colt Magnetic Particle Testing and "BMP" would indicate Bushmaster Particle Testing and so on.

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:

Originally found in AR-15/M16 SOURCEBOOK: "Ironically, Colt lost one of the contracts to build the M4 to Bushmaster Firearms/Quality Parts when the small company underbid Colt and received a contract to build 3,000 carbines for the US Navy SEALs and US Army Special Forces in 1991

Once the Internet got going that story was repeated & embellished until it reached it's peak most fantastic form here:

Quoted: Colt created the M4 config in the mid-80s at the request of the Abu Dhabi government, who wanted a carbine that had all the features of the then-new M16A2, including the ability to mount standard M203 grenade launchers. There were a couple of attempts to get the M4 adopted by the US military to replace pistols for officers and a few rifles for support troops (much as the M1 Carbine did in WWII), but they never went anywhere. Until Desert Shield/Storm, M4s were only bought in small quantities for Spec-Ops troops. Then DS happened, and Colt couldn't deliver enough M4s in time, so a small order of M4s was placed with Bushmaster to help make up the difference. That was the one and only time Bushmaster supplied complete rifles for military combat use, and they were given the TDP to do so. Of course, Colt had a sole-source contract and controlled the access to the TDP, and they were rightfully pissed that the Army had given it out without their approval/authorization. The Army tried to do it again in the mid-90s by awarding FN a contract for M4s, but there was no war on, and this time Colt sued and won an injunction.

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.

Quoted: 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.

A true gentleman.

Quoted: 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/Carbine in order to get then adopted Standard A (successfully I might add), 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 Bushmaster marketing: FF, April 02, page 8 "Quality Parts Corporation/Bushmaster.......recently completed a contract with the US military for the M16A2 M4 Carbine. 13 years later and we still have no documentation on that claim. page 13 "T&E summary...........................Well executed and reliable -- superior to all other production series M16-type rifles: meets and exceeds US MilSpec in all regards:" No comment. From the Bushmaster Warranty: "We are a U.S. Government Defense Contractor. After inspection and testing of samples for our most recent contract – the M16 A2 Carbine M4, our quality passed the most stringent U.S. military specifications. We won the contract, delivered, and were paid in full. As a matter of public record only Colt and FN can make the same claim. " Riddled with factual errors lumping Bushmaster/FN/Colt's as equals in an attempt to "ride their coat tails". From thier website: "Ours are manufactured to mil. spec. and are magnetic particle inspected to insure against cracks or flaws that could cause catastrophic bolt failure or injury." SPOT CHECKED ONLY per BFI's admission Spec is to be proofed fired, something Bushmaster fails to mention, in an attempt to give you all the idea that thier barrels meet the same specs as those of USGI suppliers.

You can call it hype or marketing if you want.
I call it lies. Pure falsehood.

Quoted: 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.....

Quoted: Quoted: You can call it hype or marketing if you want. I call it lies. Pure falsehood. \ I mean really what other manufacturer on the planet puts fake proof marks on a barrel?  What a waste of time.....

Touche`

Quoted: Quoted: 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.....

Airsoft manufacturers?

Even CMT marks a Barrel/Bolt as such only when it has been properly proofed and MPI tested.

Quoted: would someone please violate the board's Code of Conduct and put me this thread out of my its misery?

I could not agree more.

It has become nothing but one blow hard collectors wet dream.

Quoted: Quoted: would someone please violate the board's Code of Conduct and put me this thread out of my its misery? 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.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: would someone please violate the board's Code of Conduct and put me this thread out of my its misery? 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.

Bushmaster won the case and can use the M4 label.
It does not make them M4s

ETA:
<---



I burned #1K gobbling horsey wad

BOOYA!!!

Can other companies use the AR15 term now?

Quoted: Can other companies use the AR15 term now?

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.

Quoted: Bushmaster won the case and can use the M4 label. It does not make them M4s ETA: <--- tinypic.com/ifxulg.jpg I burned #1K gobbling horsey wad BOOYA!!!

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.

Quoted: 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.

What in holy hell are you babbling about, man?

Colt defense, LLC  is THE ONLY manufacturer of the M4 "military issued weapon" as you put it.

The only true M4 IS the selective fire "Carbine, M4, 5.56mm,  NSN 1005-01-231-0973 " and "Carbine, 5.56mm, M4A1 NSN 1005-01-382-0953" (US Gov't nomenclature - not Colt's) that the US Army uses. BOTH ARE MADE EXCLUSIVELY BY COLT DEFENSE, LLC. It is the US Gov't that has designated these carbines M4 and M4A1. Colt may also use the term "M4" for marketing purposes (as can BFI now apparently). This means nothing.

But Colt  has designated it's military carbines as the following depending on their features:

RO977 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO979 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst
RO777 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO779 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Burst

Colt does not call it's civilian LE semi-auto carbines "M4" as a strict designation.
The LE6920 is the closest Colt models come to the military "Carbine, M4/M4A1, 5.56mm" in a semi automatic only variant. Colt's receiver rollmarks typically do not represent the actual nomenclature, even if they include the term "M4". Rollmark "names" are marketing, nothing more. The LE carbines are designated LE6920, AR6520, AR6721 and so on.

So, yes, Colt does make the only "True" M4/M4A1. The M4s* that are taking out the BGs in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. You can ask anyone who has been there/done that. You can go the defense procurement and view the contracts. Anyone who disputes this is talking out their ass.








* Some M4s will be older rearsenaled M16A1s with M4 uppers. These are M4 in configuration but may not be Colt production.
All new production M4s and M4A1s will be Colt as they ase the sole Contract holder for NSN 1005-01-231-0973 and NSN 1005-01-382-0953.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. What in holy hell are you babbling about, man?

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.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. What in holy hell are you babbling about, man? 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.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And you dont think a government agency trys to do anything to save money?  Sorry but where have you been. The government awards contracts to anyone meeting the minimum requirements with the cheapest price. No shit. Bushmaster has produced exactly 65 guns that met the minimum requirements. Oh one more question, does this DOE "operator" as you call him hang out at your local gunstore?  Perhaps selling jerky on his free time? I mean because dirving an excursion is definately back up for saying you are a DOE operator. No. They shot to my right for five days at gun school. Their identities were not in question. Um okay.  Well you met them at a gun school, must be legit then.......... As for the Bushmaster comment, its kind of hard for you to defend your position that Colt is so much better then Bushmaster isnt it? I guess the government plates, DOE marked gear, IDs, badges, lingo, M4A1 Carbines (which I shot) and such are all an elaborate scheme to sell more jerky? If you can't figure out from the technical discussions that Colt is better than Bushmaster, you should shut the computer off and go away.

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

Quoted: and FN and Norinco are better than Colt(when it comes to reliablity) 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.

Can't wait to have my Bushmaster "M4 Carbine" lower...or Bushy AR-15 lower!!!

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

Quoted: Quoted: In defence of Troy, Tweak, and everybody else caught in this marketing scam I too fell for it.   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.

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).

Quoted: Quoted: 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.

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.