Quoted: Quoted: Ever heard of the MT6400C? I've got one in my safe. There was a Bushy M4gery right next to it on the dealers rack that was a bit less in price ($850 vs. $900) that I could have purchased instead. I'm quite sure that many people did. And that's not loss of market share? MT6400C is NOT an M4.  That's the whole point.  It is styled after the M4, just like the Bushmaster you saw was.  Neither were an M4.

Question -

When is a Colt MT6400C that is roll-stamped -

COLT
MATCH TARGET tm
M4 CARBINE

on the left side of the lower receiver - not an M4?

Answer -

When Dan76 says that it's not!

I'm sure sorry that  I've misrepresented what I've owned for the last few years. I think that I'll sue Colt for labeling its own product with its own designation.

The fact remains that the MT6400C is Colt's M4 AWB legal semi-auto civilian version of its M4 military carbine, like it or not.

Quoted: I hate when companies pull this shit, it only screws us in the end. 1. Colt sues Bushmaster 2. Colt and Bushmaster come to some secretive agreement. 3. You and I end up paying an extra $200+ per gun to cover royalties and lawyers fees. 4. Colt goes after another manufacturer and the cycle continues.

And soon they'd be charging us ... ONE MEEELLION dollars for their rifles.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ever heard of the MT6400C? I've got one in my safe. There was a Bushy M4gery right next to it on the dealers rack that was a bit less in price ($850 vs. $900) that I could have purchased instead. I'm quite sure that many people did. And that's not loss of market share? MT6400C is NOT an M4.  That's the whole point.  It is styled after the M4, just like the Bushmaster you saw was.  Neither were an M4. Question - When is a Colt MT6400C that is roll-stamped - COLT MATCH TARGET tm M4 CARBINE on the left side of the lower receiver - not an M4? Answer - When Dan76 says that it's not! I'm sure sorry that  I've misrepresented what I've owned for the last few years. I think that I'll sue Colt for labeling its own product with its own designation. The fact remains that the MT6400C is Colt's M4 AWB legal semi-auto civilian version of its M4 military carbine, like it or not.

Believe everything you read do you?  Slap your upper on a mil spec military M4 and tell me how it goes.

Quoted: Quoted: The more I learn about Colt the more I hate them. Let's see what you would do if the product that you are best at making, did all the R&D and sold the first batch to the government (M16A2) is suddently now made by FN because they underbidded you.   M4 is really Colt's only thing left now, they should have every right to do what they need to do, to protect themselves. I mean look at the HKM4, it's pretty obvious where they got the inspiration of the name.

The USMC developed the M16A2

I've come to the conclusion that some people will bash Colt no matter what Colt does.  Many people do it just because the other guy is doing it and they simply don't have the wherewithall to seek the information for themselves and make an independent decision.  This is borne out in the fact that some of the biggest arguments against Colt hold true for all the other manufacturers in some form or another.  For example...

People say Colt has non-standard pins while forgetting the fact that every other civilian AR manufacturer uses a non-standard carbine buffer tube precluding the use of some of the most popular aftermarket stocks.

People say Colt uses a sear block while forgetting that every other AR manufacturer with the exception of Bushmaster uses some form of sear block.

People say Colt won't build noban rifles while forgetting that other manufacturers won't even give you the option of a 1:7 twist, chrome-lining, or 4150 barrel steel.

People say Colt doesn't care about our second amendment rights while forgetting that Colt makes rifles for the men and women protecting your right to exercise the second amendment.

BTW, people have been predicting Colt's demise since 1847...  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ever heard of the MT6400C? I've got one in my safe. There was a Bushy M4gery right next to it on the dealers rack that was a bit less in price ($850 vs. $900) that I could have purchased instead. I'm quite sure that many people did. And that's not loss of market share? MT6400C is NOT an M4.  That's the whole point.  It is styled after the M4, just like the Bushmaster you saw was.  Neither were an M4. Question - When is a Colt MT6400C that is roll-stamped - COLT MATCH TARGET tm M4 CARBINE on the left side of the lower receiver - not an M4? Answer - When Dan76 says that it's not! I'm sure sorry that  I've misrepresented what I've owned for the last few years. I think that I'll sue Colt for labeling its own product with its own designation. The fact remains that the MT6400C is Colt's M4 AWB legal semi-auto civilian version of its M4 military carbine, like it or not. Believe everything you read do you?  Slap your upper on a mil spec military M4 and tell me how it goes.

I think you might want to do a little more research, my friend.  The MT6400C upper will function just fine on a real M4 because it is identical to a real M4 upper with the exception of the AWB and NFA compliant parts.  The MT6400C, and even moreso the LE6920, are the closest thing a civilian can get to a real M4 in a semi-auto firearm.  

Quoted: I've come to the conclusion that some people will bash Colt no matter what Colt does.  Many people do it just because the other guy is doing it and they simply don't have the wherewithall to seek the information for themselves and make an independent decision.  This is borne out in the fact that some of the biggest arguments against Colt hold true for all the other manufacturers in some form or another.  For example... People say Colt has non-standard pins while forgetting the fact that every other civilian AR manufacturer uses a non-standard carbine buffer tube precluding the use of some of the most popular aftermarket stocks. People say Colt uses a sear block while forgetting that every other AR manufacturer with the exception of Bushmaster uses some form of sear block. People say Colt won't build noban rifles while forgetting that other manufacturers won't even give you the option of a 1:7 twist, chrome-lining, or 4150 barrel steel. People say Colt doesn't care about our second amendment rights while forgetting that Colt makes rifles for the men and women protecting your right to exercise the second amendment. BTW, people have been predicting Colt's demise since 1847...

Let me make the distinction here, I am by no means bashing Colt as a company.  I am making an argument against thier lawsuit wich, in my opinion, is much ado about nothing aside from possibly unfair use of a trademark name.

Here's a thought.  I am sure Colt will retain "M4" as a registered trademark far after 2009.  Let's say they loose the contract for supplying the M4 carbine after 2009 and the DoD start buying them from, oh whoever, Bushmaster maybe.  Think Colt will sue the DoD if they continue calling thier Bushmaster carbines M4's?  I wouldn't put it past them.

Quoted:The MT6400C, and even moreso the LE6920, are the closest thing a civilian can get to a real M4 in a semi-auto firearm.

LE6920 - WHOO HOO!!!!  And I have one!

*runs away from the anti-colt fanatics*  

Quoted: Quoted: I've come to the conclusion that some people will bash Colt no matter what Colt does.  Many people do it just because the other guy is doing it and they simply don't have the wherewithall to seek the information for themselves and make an independent decision.  This is borne out in the fact that some of the biggest arguments against Colt hold true for all the other manufacturers in some form or another.  For example... People say Colt has non-standard pins while forgetting the fact that every other civilian AR manufacturer uses a non-standard carbine buffer tube precluding the use of some of the most popular aftermarket stocks. People say Colt uses a sear block while forgetting that every other AR manufacturer with the exception of Bushmaster uses some form of sear block. People say Colt won't build noban rifles while forgetting that other manufacturers won't even give you the option of a 1:7 twist, chrome-lining, or 4150 barrel steel. People say Colt doesn't care about our second amendment rights while forgetting that Colt makes rifles for the men and women protecting your right to exercise the second amendment. BTW, people have been predicting Colt's demise since 1847...   Let me make the distinction here, I am by no means bashing Colt as a company.  I am making an argument against thier lawsuit wich, in my opinion, is much ado about nothing aside from possibly unfair use of a trademark name. Here's a thought.  I am sure Colt will retain "M4" as a registered trademark far after 2009.  Let's say they loose the contract for supplying the M4 carbine after 2009 and the DoD start buying them from, oh whoever, Bushmaster maybe.  Think Colt will sue the DoD if they continue calling thier Bushmaster carbines M4's?  I wouldn't put it past them.

Should Bushmaster be allowed to sue if someone markets a 16" barreled rifle with a rifle length gas system and calls it a Dissipator?  Should a musician be allowed to sue another musician for using their music or lyrics without permission?  Should a car manufacturer be allowed to sue another car manufacturer for producing a car identical to and possessing the name of their car?  It happens everyday in the corporate world.  It's called patent, trademark, and copyright law.  Like I said, people only care because it's Colt.

Quoted: Quoted:The MT6400C, and even moreso the LE6920, are the closest thing a civilian can get to a real M4 in a semi-auto firearm.   LE6920 - WHOO HOO!!!!  And I have one! *runs away from the anti-colt fanatics*

Actually, I was mistaken.  While the MT6400C and LE6920 are very close, the LE6921 is a civilian M4.

Quoted: Should Bushmaster be allowed to sue if someone markets a 16" barreled rifle with a rifle length gas system and calls it a Dissipator?

Is it OK if they make one and don't call it a Dissipator?  The argument that nobody should be able to make an "M4 style" rifle is bull, because it's only a collection of existing parts anyway.  

As for the higher FSB, someone please explain why this was "required".  Bushmaster seems to have no problem making a carry handle and BUIS that work perfectly fine with the existing FSB.  

Quoted: Is it OK if they make one and don't call it a Dissipator?  The argument that nobody should be able to make an "M4 style" rifle is bull, because it's only a collection of existing parts anyway.

Should Toyota be able to build a truck identical to my Nissan Crew Cab and call it something else?

As for the higher FSB, someone please explain why this was "required".  Bushmaster seems to have no problem making a carry handle and BUIS that work perfectly fine with the existing FSB.

It is speculated that Colt made the web at the top of the receiver thicker to accomodate the use of heavy optics that had the potential of damaging the receiver itself.  If this is indeed true, Colt chose to use existing carry handles and FSB's, rather than creating a need for two heights of carry handles and FSB's.  The FSB's are identical with the exception of the block that the front sight post is threaded into.  It is milled higher on the taller FSB's.

Quoted: Should Bushmaster be allowed to sue if someone markets a 16" barreled rifle with a rifle length gas system and calls it a Dissipator?

If Bushmaster owns that trademark sure.  If they call it Dissipator type M4 type?  Arguable, but in my opinion, get over it.  But it's hardly the same situation.  The situation you describe involves the same customer.  My point is Colt is suing that someone is making a similar product and selling it to a customer.   It gets a little grey because no company is ACTUALLY selling an M4 to anyone (an M4 being mil-spec all the way, select fire, etc.)

Should a musician be allowed to sue another musician for using their music or lyrics without permission?

Depends on the usage.  Requires a context.

Should a car manufacturer be allowed to sue another car manufacturer for producing a car identical to and possessing the name of their car?

Ahh there you go!  If identical, a resounding YES!  But I keep telling you, BusHy's carbine is NOT AN M4!  It's similar, to be sure.  But it is not select fire, among other things.  THAT'S an M4.

It happens everyday in the corporate world.  It's called patent, trademark, and copyright law.  Like I said, people only care because it's Colt.

I could give a rat's ass who the company is.  This country is lawsuit crazy.  I'm franky sick of all these patent and trademark lawsuits.  It's rediculous.

If Colt wins it would be the end of ALL ar-15 carbines (except colt ones).  The first weapon I ever fired was a Colt M-16A2.  Loved that thing.  Miss it.

Quoted:

Ahh there you go!  If identical, a resounding YES!  But I keep telling you, BusHy's carbine is NOT AN M4!  It's similar, to be sure.  But it is not select fire, among other things.  THAT'S an M4.

Right from the bushmaster web site. Notice the wording M4A2 & M4A3 Also 1st par. line #9 It is avalable in select fire.

The Bushmaster XM15 E2S M4A2 Type Carbine combines light weight with plenty of .223 caliber firepower. Its chrome lined barrel - designed to mount the M203 Grenade Launcher - offers maximum longevity and accuracy. A telescoping buttstock brings light weight, ease of carrying and quick handling. Mounted on the upper receiver is the latest A2 dual flip-up rear peep sight which is adjustable for both windage and elevation. Forged, lightweight 7075T6 aircraft quality aluminum receivers are designed for simplicity of maintenance and reliability of operation and they incorporate all M16A2 design improvements including cartridge case deflector, last round bolt hold-open and raised ridges for magazine release button protection. Depending upon customer preference, the M4 Carbine is available in either safe/semi-auto/full-auto or safe/semi-auto/three-shot burst configurations. A mil. spec. manganese phosphate outer coating insures complete protection against corrosion or rust on the barrel and all other critical steel parts of the weapon.

The M4A3 Type (shown below) has the “flat-top” style Upper Receiver with an integral Picatinny rail to offer a variety of sight, scope or night vision mounting options. A 1/2 M.o.A. M16A2 rear sight is incorporated into the Removeable Carrying Handle. Knurled thumbnuts allow on and off mounting of the handle with instant repeat zero.

The XM15 E2S M4 14.5" Bbl. Carbine is shipped complete with 30 round magazine, carrying sling and Operator's Safety and Instructional Manual, all in a hard plastic shipping case.

Suggested Retail Price: $1080.00
Carry Handle: $99.99

Quoted: they should also be suing all of the other ar makers, they all have an M4gery version

 They don't have the market share and pockets of BM.

Colt is gay.

Quoted: Colt is gay.

Colt is teh AWESOME!

*runs away*

Quoted: Colt is gay.

I think that may be the most profound thing I've heard come out of a Colt basher's mouth.  

Quoted: Quoted: As if HK actually cared about the civilian market... You got me there!  Bushmaster does though.

That last statement is hilarious as Bushmaster would be toast without the civilian market. LOL

I guarantee you if Bushmaster had a large Military contract (like Colt), they too would most likely be less "civilian friendly" also!

Seems to me that if Colt truely owns the trademark to the name "M4" then they have the right and ability to call whatever they want an "M4" as it's their property to do with as they want.

They could begin making little pieces of rubber dog poop and label it the "M4" and fight over the right to use that term exclusively.

Such is their perogative and when it comes to suing other companies over trying to protect the ability to use "M4" type descriptions of their product or exclusively use the name, so be it.     Bushmaster and HK should have known better if they used those terms.


DPMS learned this lesson a long damn time ago and hence the reason you see the funky descriptions in earlier catalogs such as "hartford horsely logo" and other funky stuff, they didn't want to refer to Colt names or models in ANY fashion because it sounds like they had locked horns with Colt in the past.

But in the end, when Colt calls something an M4 as slated for the civilian market is it the same thing as what the military considers to be an "M4" within mil-spec.   Not unless it meets every single criteria in the contract, no.

Colt does try to offer the civilian, or maybe LEO, markets products which are comparable to military/gov't. contract firearms.    But Colt still can call an M16 or AR15 in just about any configuration anything it wants due to the trademark rights to those names yet they try to stick closely to military type designators.    Compare an M16 A3 and an M16 A4 in the military setting then try to compare to the closest thing Colt produces for the civilian market and try to figure out if it should be a Colt AR15 A2 or Colt AR15 A3.


Bushmaster should have played it smart and never said anything relating to "M4" in their advertisements.    Maybe a tounge in cheek advertising campaign that says,

"Hey, we're making super secret ninja squirrel AR15s with 14.5inch barrels as well but don't tell those elitist snobs at that other company."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: As if HK actually cared about the civilian market... You got me there!  Bushmaster does though. That last statement is hilarious as Bushmaster would be toast without the civilian market. LOL I guarantee you if Bushmaster had a large Military contract (like Colt), they too would most likely be less "civilian friendly" also!

Kinda like how barrett is so unfriendly to the civillian market because of his military contracts??? Oh wait, he's actually one of the best friends of the RKBA and civillian ownership in the gun industry!

Your claim is BS.

Quoted: The more I learn about Colt the more I hate them.

Quoted: Colt-developed M16 rifle i thought armalite developed the m16?

Fairchild Aircraft I thought?

Anything else from the OLD NEWS department??

Seriously guys......haven't we already discussed this at length??

I am more interested to see if H&K sues Colt now.

I guarantee you if Bushmaster had a large Military contract (like Colt), they too would most likely be less "civilian friendly" also!

And how, pray tell, would you guarantee that result? Can you read the minds of Bushmaster management?

If your argument is that all companies who get mil contracts shit all over their civvie customers, you need to study some history. There are plenty of companies with military contracts (GM, Boeing, Aimpoint, Eotech, GG&G) who work like crazy to maintain their civillian markets. Explain please; what exactly, is there about Bushmaster management that would cause them to act with the same profound stupidity as Colt management?

I always thought that if the government (military) issued a contract for a product then the government itself holds rights to that product.  Otherwords the government truly owns the design and can actually contract it out to whomever they want.  I know this will probably get flamed...I don't care.  The government normally issues a contract for an item to a manufacturor and that manufacturor builds the required number and after that its pretty much fair game.  The only thing the gov cant do is order a contract, award it out then build it themselves.  I know that for sure.  The only way a government operator can local man his own stuff is if noone builds it any more.  At least that is the way it works for us....oh damn, I forgot, I work for the government....better not let Bell helicopter catch me building any of their stuff.  But I can rebuild it with other folks parts :)


Who cares what Colt does, I don't.  All I care about is that Bushmaster fixes my upper and hurries up and gets it back to me.  I think we all just need to get along...think happy thoughts :)

Ya know...I bet if I was able to buy everyone a round at the bar someone would found a way to complain.


Later,

Wes

Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Colt does in fact have the legal right to preclude any other manufacturer from using the term "M4". What does this prove other than that Colt, along with every drug pusher, ambulance chaser, and child molestor has legal rights? It does not mean that they are any the less cowardly scum who are unable/unwilling to compete in an open market.

SD

Quoted: Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Colt does in fact have the legal right to preclude any other manufacturer from using the term "M4". What does this prove other than that Colt, along with every drug pusher, ambulance chaser, and child molestor has legal rights? It does not mean that they are any the less cowardly scum who are unable/unwilling to compete in an open market. SD

That's kind of a weak argument don't you think considering Chevy won't be making something called an F-150 anytime soon?  I think it's just more unsubstantiated Colt bashing myself.  

Quoted: I guarantee you if Bushmaster had a large Military contract (like Colt), they too would most likely be less "civilian friendly" also! And how, pray tell, would you guarantee that result? Can you read the minds of Bushmaster management? If your argument is that all companies who get mil contracts shit all over their civvie customers, you need to study some history. There are plenty of companies with military contracts (GM, Boeing, Aimpoint, Eotech, GG&G) who work like crazy to maintain their civillian markets. Explain please; what exactly, is there about Bushmaster management that would cause them to act with the same profound stupidity as Colt management?

Since when has Colt shit on gun owners??? Their policies concerning civilians rifles do suck but the way some of you guys demonize Colt you would think they were in bed with Diane Swinestein!

If you don't like Colt's policies then don't buy their products.

Unfortunately the Bushmaster question will probably never be answered as I doubt the Military will award Bushmaster a contract (they want quality weapons).

Quoted: Quoted: Should Bushmaster be allowed to sue if someone markets a 16" barreled rifle with a rifle length gas system and calls it a Dissipator? If Bushmaster owns that trademark sure.  If they call it Dissipator type M4 type?  Arguable, but in my opinion, get over it.  But it's hardly the same situation.  The situation you describe involves the same customer.  My point is Colt is suing that someone is making a similar product and selling it to a customer.   It gets a little grey because no company is ACTUALLY selling an M4 to anyone (an M4 being mil-spec all the way, select fire, etc.) Should a musician be allowed to sue another musician for using their music or lyrics without permission? Depends on the usage.  Requires a context. Should a car manufacturer be allowed to sue another car manufacturer for producing a car identical to and possessing the name of their car? Ahh there you go!  If identical, a resounding YES!  But I keep telling you, BusHy's carbine is NOT AN M4!  It's similar, to be sure.  But it is not select fire, among other things.  THAT'S an M4. It happens everyday in the corporate world.  It's called patent, trademark, and copyright law.  Like I said, people only care because it's Colt. I could give a rat's ass who the company is.  This country is lawsuit crazy.  I'm franky sick of all these patent and trademark lawsuits.  It's rediculous. If Colt wins it would be the end of ALL ar-15 carbines (except colt ones).  The first weapon I ever fired was a Colt M-16A2.  Loved that thing.  Miss it.

Dan76,
     
              OK, you win! If you say that a Colt labeled M4 isn't really an M4 you must be right. Are you the self-appointed god of what's allowed to be called an M4 Carbine because of some special knowledge that even Colt is not aware of? After all, if the first weapon that you ever fired was an M16A2 you must have seen it all .

Have you any idea how many different M4 labeled variations that Colt produces? Auto (select fire), burst fire, 4-way, and yes, semi-auto. Barrel lengths? 11.5", 14.5", and yes 16". In many variations, all labeled M4 Carbine. And that's not counting the LE versions, which I'm not so sure are labeled as such.

But when it all comes down to it, it's Colt's decision and not yours to make, other than in your own mind.

And your nonsense about it being the end of all ar-15 carbines except Colt's if they win their lawsuit - that's also all in your mind .

Ive got a solution.... Instead of bantering back and forth about how bad Colt is... Just dont buy their shit.. Buy from a company that cares about its customers..

Viva La Bushmaster!!!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Should Bushmaster be allowed to sue if someone markets a 16" barreled rifle with a rifle length gas system and calls it a Dissipator? If Bushmaster owns that trademark sure.  If they call it Dissipator type M4 type?  Arguable, but in my opinion, get over it.  But it's hardly the same situation.  The situation you describe involves the same customer.  My point is Colt is suing that someone is making a similar product and selling it to a customer.   It gets a little grey because no company is ACTUALLY selling an M4 to anyone (an M4 being mil-spec all the way, select fire, etc.) Should a musician be allowed to sue another musician for using their music or lyrics without permission? Depends on the usage.  Requires a context. Should a car manufacturer be allowed to sue another car manufacturer for producing a car identical to and possessing the name of their car? Ahh there you go!  If identical, a resounding YES!  But I keep telling you, BusHy's carbine is NOT AN M4!  It's similar, to be sure.  But it is not select fire, among other things.  THAT'S an M4. It happens everyday in the corporate world.  It's called patent, trademark, and copyright law.  Like I said, people only care because it's Colt. I could give a rat's ass who the company is.  This country is lawsuit crazy.  I'm franky sick of all these patent and trademark lawsuits.  It's rediculous. If Colt wins it would be the end of ALL ar-15 carbines (except colt ones).  The first weapon I ever fired was a Colt M-16A2.  Loved that thing.  Miss it. Dan76,                     OK, you win! If you say that a Colt labeled M4 isn't really an M4 you must be right. Are you the self-appointed god of what's allowed to be called an M4 Carbine because of some special knowledge that even Colt is not aware of? After all, if the first weapon that you ever fired was an M16A2 you must have seen it all hinking.gif. Have you any idea how many different M4 labeled variations that Colt produces? Auto (select fire), burst fire, 4-way, and yes, semi-auto. Barrel lengths? 11.5", 14.5", and yes 16". In many variations, all labeled M4 Carbine. And that's not counting the LE versions, which I'm not so sure are labeled as such. But when it all comes down to it, it's Colt's decision and not yours to make, other than in your own mind. And your nonsense about it being the end of all ar-15 carbines except Colt's if they win their lawsuit - that's also all in your mind hr

You continuously oversimplify what I'm saying.  It's way more complex than just Bushmaster and HK stopping usage of the term M4 (which was fair game up until 2003 it seems).  They state on thier page that mere styling of thier firearms is infringing somehow.  The LOOK of the rifle is being questioned as well.  If Colt wins judgement on this, all other manufacturers who make rifles that LOOK like M4's will have to stop making them.  That opens up even more doors, stop making Airsoft M4 stlyed guns.  It's a domino effect, it's a popular legal tactic in trademark infringement cases, and it has potential to keep going all the way to toys (albeit unlikely).

You also totally misconstrued what I said about the first rifle I ever shot.  I was merely stating that this is not a Colt bashing argument.  I think thier firearms are good stuff.  Sure, their politics suck, but stopping business with everyone based on personal feelings is not what I'm about.  I would feel rather nostalgic about owning another Colt, particularly an A2 standard rifle.

Quoted: Ive got a solution.... Instead of bantering back and forth about how bad Colt is... Just dont buy their shit.. Buy from a company that cares about its customers.. Viva La Bushmaster!!!

I would buy a Colt.  I have no problem with that.  I just don't want them driving up prices more.

Quoted: Ive got a solution.... Instead of bantering back and forth about how bad Colt is... Just dont buy their shit.. Buy from a company that cares about its customers.. Viva La Bushmaster!!!

Apparently, you haven't been hanging out in the Bushmaster Forum lately.  

Here, let me help you out...

Purple Rain?

Is this train running on time?

I don't think this train is running on time.

I just picked up on this statement...

Heckler & Koch, whose principal place of business is Oberndorf, Germany, falsely states that it will manufacture firearms in a plant in Georgia that does not yet exist.

Colt is saying that HK is lying that they WILL produce in Georgia.  Somehow, Colt has found the magic crystal ball looking into the future and found that this will not happen.  HK is just reporting it's intentions and Colt has NO WAY of knowing whether or not it is true.  LOL.  I hate lawyers.

Quoted: I just picked up on this statement... Heckler & Koch, whose principal place of business is Oberndorf, Germany, falsely states that it will manufacture firearms in a plant in Georgia that does not yet exist. Colt is saying that HK is lying that they WILL produce in Georgia.  Somehow, Colt has found the magic crystal ball looking into the future and found that this will not happen.  HK is just reporting it's intentions and Colt has NO WAY of knowing whether or not it is true.  LOL.  I hate lawyers.

Like I said, it's no different than if you were able to read the legal briefs from any corporate infringement case.  People are just adding it to the list of things to dis Colt about.

Quoted: Quoted: I just picked up on this statement... Heckler & Koch, whose principal place of business is Oberndorf, Germany, falsely states that it will manufacture firearms in a plant in Georgia that does not yet exist. Colt is saying that HK is lying that they WILL produce in Georgia.  Somehow, Colt has found the magic crystal ball looking into the future and found that this will not happen.  HK is just reporting it's intentions and Colt has NO WAY of knowing whether or not it is true.  LOL.  I hate lawyers. Like I said, it's no different than if you were able to read the legal briefs from any corporate infringement case.  People are just adding it to the list of things to dis Colt about.

So what?  Let em.  It's fun stuff to read.  It won't stop me from buying the best equipment I can afford, whatever company produces it.

Quoted: Now that's quality.

I'd get rid of this one, Bradd, it's just a bunch of Colt guys agreeing with one Colt guy who doesn't even know WTF he is talking about.  This won't help your cause much.

Quoted: Quoted: Now that's quality. I'd get rid of this one, Bradd, it's just a bunch of Colt guys agreeing with one Colt guy who doesn't even know WTF he is talking about.  This won't help your cause much.

Yeah...I debated whether to leave it in.  I did simply because it's pretty sad that something that nasty made it out of the shop and then, like I have stated many times, Bushmaster's response is, "Oh, did we do that (damn...busted!)?  Send it back to us and we'll fix it right up!".  QC by proxy, my friend.

BTW, where are the Colt guys?    All I see is a guy posting about a crappy feedramp and catching hell for it.

I'm not going to read the middle 2 pages.

Colt does not own the "M16 A2 Carbine M4" label, the US government does.  Its the basic description of a weapon that meets a particular requirement.

The press release makes Colt sound like a bunch of extra whiney girly gun makers.  Boo fuckin' hoo, bid for the contracts just like everyone else.

I have a Colt, I like its fit and finish, and I intend to keep the rifle, but they need a wake up call.  They seem to have an attitude that they are the only maker of fireams in the US, or because the company has been around a while, that Colt is due special consideration.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Now that's quality. I'd get rid of this one, Bradd, it's just a bunch of Colt guys agreeing with one Colt guy who doesn't even know WTF he is talking about.  This won't help your cause much. Yeah...I debated whether to leave it in.  I did simply because it's pretty sad that something that nasty made it out of the shop and then, like I have stated many times, Bushmaster's response is, "Oh, did we do that (damn...busted!)?  Send it back to us and we'll fix it right up!".  QC by proxy, my friend.

True, true..............we both agree that home built rifles using quality parts are the way to go, so these arguments are nothing but cheap entertainment for me.  I have my chosen side and it's not Colt, but it's not Bushmaster factory equipment either.

Quoted: Should Toyota be able to build a truck identical to my Nissan Crew Cab and call it something else?

IF the patents had run out, and everybody and their mother was making trucks just like the Nissan Crew Cab, then Nissan released one with different sized tires and a brush guard and called it the "Nissan M4" would that preclude everybody else from being able to put those same size tires and a brush guard on their models too?

Quoted: I'm not going to read the middle 2 pages. Colt does not own the "M16 A2 Carbine M4" label, the US government does.  Its the basic description of a weapon that meets a particular requirement. The press release makes Colt sound like a bunch of extra whiney girly gun makers.  Boo fuckin' hoo, bid for the contracts just like everyone else. I have a Colt, I like its fit and finish, and I intend to keep the rifle, but they need a wake up call.  They seem to have an attitude that they are the only maker of fireams in the US, or because the company has been around a while, that Colt is due special consideration.

I don't know that that's completely true as the M4 was originally designed for a foreign gov't I believe so the .gov wasn't involved yet.  Also, if that were true I don't think Colt would be able to put M4 on a non-.gov rifle.

M4 is a Registerd Trade Mark of Colt. Colt®   M4®

Quoted: Quoted: Should Toyota be able to build a truck identical to my Nissan Crew Cab and call it something else? IF the patents had run out, and everybody and their mother was making trucks just like the Nissan Crew Cab, then Nissan released one with different sized tires and a brush guard and called it the "Nissan M4" would that preclude everybody else from being able to put those same size tires and a brush guard on their models too?

The point is...it is enforced in all arenas of the corporate world.  It's up to the court system to discern the validity of Colt's claims not some penny ante lawyer such as yourself.  Once again, people only make it an issue because it's Colt.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Now that's quality. I'd get rid of this one, Bradd, it's just a bunch of Colt guys agreeing with one Colt guy who doesn't even know WTF he is talking about.  This won't help your cause much. Yeah...I debated whether to leave it in.  I did simply because it's pretty sad that something that nasty made it out of the shop and then, like I have stated many times, Bushmaster's response is, "Oh, did we do that (damn...busted!)?  Send it back to us and we'll fix it right up!".  QC by proxy, my friend. True, true..............we both agree that home built rifles using quality parts are the way to go, so these arguments are nothing but cheap entertainment for me.  I have my chosen side and it's not Colt, but it's not Bushmaster factory equipment either.

I guess all I'm asking in these threads is for people to apply as much scrutiny to all the manufacturers as they do Colt.

Quoted: I always thought that if the government (military) issued a contract for a product then the government itself holds rights to that product.  Otherwords the government truly owns the design and can actually contract it out to whomever they want.  I know this will probably get flamed...I don't care.  The government normally issues a contract for an item to a manufacturor and that manufacturor builds the required number and after that its pretty much fair game.  The only thing the gov cant do is order a contract, award it out then build it themselves.  I know that for sure.  The only way a government operator can local man his own stuff is if noone builds it any more.  At least that is the way it works for us....oh damn, I forgot, I work for the government....better not let Bell helicopter catch me building any of their stuff.  But I can rebuild it with other folks parts :) Who cares what Colt does, I don't.  All I care about is that Bushmaster fixes my upper and hurries up and gets it back to me.  I think we all just need to get along...think happy thoughts :) Ya know...I bet if I was able to buy everyone a round at the bar someone would found a way to complain. Later, Wes

No, that's how the old 'Armory System' used to work...

The US Govt only had 'rights' to weapons developed by the US Govt...

Since the M16, the Govt purchases privately developed weapons, and the original owners retain the rights to the design...

In Defense of Bushmaster they submited samples to the military of the carbon # 4 type rifles that takes standard AR/M16 assemblies but are similiar in apperance to their  profesional ordance type rifle.So if the military ever decides that ...and this reason would be a driving factor if the polymer design proves good then they could use current existing stocks of spare parts wich would be cost effective big time.I dont see why a polymer based AR design wouldnt be just as or more reliable than XM8 even with the current direct gas system.On a polymer AR you could probably fire it dry considering polymer is self lubricating then colt would still lose because the design would stay but the technology is Bushmasters and then maybe Cav arms because of their experience with polymers would get a contract and colt and  FN another not civilian friendly company woulkd give way to Bushmaster and cav arms.That would be great the design would live on but colt can say bye byeso maybe one day Bushmaster will get a military contract and it is possible.Remember special forces will get it first to try it out and then they see.I would put a model#4 carbine against XM8 any time fire it dry and in sand and then well see.

That's kind of a weak argument don't you think considering Chevy won't be making something called an F-150 anytime soon?

But then again, Ford will NOT be suing GM for using the term "truck" when advertising its products; which is the catagorical equivalent of what Colt is trying to pull.

If some of you guys want to buy Colt now matter how poorly they treat you, that is your absolute right. However Colt, because it can't/won't compete on a level playing field, is trying to drive up the prices of the competing manufacturers whom I buy from. And that really, truly, deeply pisses me off.

There's nothing specific to Colt in my feelings about this. I dislike all dirty little shits who can't compete and so go running to the lawyers to try for an advantage.

SD

Dan76,
              If I oversimplify what you say It's only because I took what you posted literally, such as your remark about the M16A2 being the first weapon that you ever fired. Sorry if I didn't understand that you really meant something different than what you put into print. OK, lets forget about that and go on to something more important.

Perhaps you should go back and read my  answer to your initial post in this thread. I think that I was very specific about the fact that I wasn't talking about the issue pertaining to the M4 name trademark. I repeat that I believe that Colt's primary reason for going after both Bushy and H&K at this time is to protect their "critical and unique" M4 technical data. The data that they spent their time and money on, and that they sucessfully defended in a Federal Court against FN.

The Court held that Colt had developed the M4 exclusively at its own expense and that the development of the M4 tech data did not involve mixed govt funding, and therefore the M4 data was not an enhancement of the 1967 license which Colt had already been paid for. The data belonged to Colt. Sole-source until 2009 with royalty rights until 2050.

I believe that Colt must defend every segment of its M4 design if it desires to retain its rights to any of them. Cosmetics, name, and internal components must be defended vigorously. As a loose example - if KIA built an identical Corvette look-a-like using their powertrain components don't for a minute think that GM wouldn't go after them with vigor. In order to keep the rights to their design they must challenge the entire copy effort. I have a sneaking suspicion - so don't hold me to it - that Colt is possibly engaging in a payback to Bushmaster. Paying them back for their unsucessful attempt at snaking an M4 contract out of the govt. And to ensure that they don't get away with another try in the future.

H&K has been greasing a lot of wheels in our military as well as on Capitol Hill.  If they can't sell us their XM8 they'll push their "improved" HKM4. Problem is they've "borrowed" some of Colt's M4 tech data to build this thing, but do not want to pay Colt for it.

Colt owes it to their stockholders to defend its property. Do you have your retirement or your kids future invested in any American companies?

As I said in my first post in this thread, I think that Colt's civilian policy sucks. Let me add that I don't want to see any of us lose the ability to own a legal version of the M4, no matter who makes it. I really don't think that Colt seeks to shut down its civilian sales competition, but must do what it has to do to protect itself from companies that attempt to illegally compete for govt contracts using intellectual property and tech data that the Courts have repeatedly ruled belong to Colt.

This is getting far to long-winded so I'll stop here. Read it and weep, Colt bashers!