Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/22/2004 9:36:51 PM EST
Spent some time on Colt's website and found this:
www.colt.com/mil/news.asp

Anyone know where this has gone?
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:50:12 PM EST

Colt-developed M16 rifle

i thought armalite developed the m16?
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:56:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 9:59:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mudzilla:

Colt-developed M16 rifle

i thought armalite developed the m16?



The original Armalite was a part of the Fairchild Corporation, IIRC. Different Armalite now.

Colt developed the M4 on its own, in the early 1980s. Actually, the military of Dubai helped.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 10:00:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mudzilla:

Colt-developed M16 rifle

i thought armalite developed the m16?



Colt bought the rights way-back-when, and future versions were developed by Colt...

Some of the early Colt weapons are still marked ArmaLite (these Colt/ArmaLite AR-15s make up the few such weapons that are C&R MGs. And yes, the original AR-15s were machineguns)....
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 10:14:58 PM EST



There are two early, C&R Armalite AR15, F/As for sale on www.subguns.com.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 10:34:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/22/2004 10:35:59 PM EST by Darkest2000]

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
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.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 10:41:03 PM EST
So, Colt is saying "Those guys had the nerve to offer AR15s with, uh, 14.5 inch barrels and flattop uppers... and they aren't even charging $1500 for it!!"
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 10:45:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Darkest2000:

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.



If Colt wants to protect themselves, they should make a better product available to civilians!
The consumer has every right to want a better product! Colt needs to get their nose out of the clouds and their head out of their asses! If FN can under-bid them and still meet mil-specs, then the U.S. Government has every right to utilize that resource. After all, they write the mil-specs.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 10:54:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/22/2004 10:55:36 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Sharkman629:

Originally Posted By Darkest2000:

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.



If Colt wants to protect themselves, they should make a better product available to civilians!
The consumer has every right to want a better product! Colt needs to get their nose out of the clouds and their head out of their asses! If FN can under-bid them and still meet mil-specs, then the U.S. Government has every right to utilize that resource. After all, they write the mil-specs.



If HK takes an arguably inferior product and puts teh Colt name on it, then they deserve to be sued...

That's why we have Trademark law in the first place...

There are probably patent issues involved as well...
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 11:03:59 PM EST

If HK takes an arguably inferior product and puts teh Colt name on it, then they deserve to be sued...

That's why we have Trademark law in the first place...

There are probably patent issues involved as well...


I would bet a good dollar that H&K parts are definitely not inferior to Colt. Regardless, if the allegations of part number tampering can be proven, I agree H&K should be sued. I however think this is just a cheap attempt by Colt to stop other manufacturers who are giving them competition, especially in the civilian market.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 11:10:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sharkman629:
I however think this is just a cheap attempt by Colt to stop other manufacturers who are giving them competition, especially in the civilian market.



As if HK actually cared about the civilian market...
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 11:25:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Darkest2000:

As if HK actually cared about the civilian market...



You got me there! Bushmaster does though.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 2:59:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Darkest2000:
M4 is really Colt's only thing left now, they should have every right to do what they need to do, to protect themselves.



It's the only thing left now because they gave their civilian clientele the shaft.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 3:51:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Darkest2000:

Originally Posted By Sharkman629:
I however think this is just a cheap attempt by Colt to stop other manufacturers who are giving them competition, especially in the civilian market.



As if HK actually cared about the civilian market...



As if Colt actually cared about the civilian market.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 4:02:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 4:02:58 AM EST by mongo001]
Colt is fighting for its existence in the rifle manufacturing realm with this. If the XM-8 was ever adopted, Colt would cave in as a company, at least in the rifle building department. For all intents and purposes, they have cut off their civilian market, so if a replacement rifle ever comes to be for the M4...................................bye, bye Colt.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 4:06:35 AM EST
From Colt:

"The complaint alleges that Bushmaster, which has no legal right or authority to sell to the U.S. military, has intentionally and illegally incorporated the look and feel of the Colt M4 into its "M4 type" carbine. By duplicating the appearance of a real M4 weapon, and employing calculated marketing that blurs the distinction between Colt’s products and their own, Bushmaster deceptively markets its "M4 type" carbine to the civilian market and foreign governments, hoping that consumers will confuse the goodwill associated with the Colt brand with Bushmaster, according to the complaint. "

Oh gee - I really thought my BM was a Colt because it has a 14.5" barrel, a flat top and a barrel cut.

Well, if you can't beat 'em, sue 'em . . .

Link Posted: 9/23/2004 4:11:03 AM EST
they should also be suing all of the other ar makers, they all have an M4gery version
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 4:13:14 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 4:30:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 4:31:53 AM EST by Jetlag]
They could say they were referring to the military's M4 not specifically Colt's.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 4:40:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 4:44:20 AM EST by jmart]
This is just an extension of using the courts to accomplish what you can't on your own. Special interests have done it for years, now Colt is crying foul because their own stupid policies have got them where they are. I'm not shedding too many tears for them over this.

BTW, what's next? Remington suing Winchester, Weatherby suing Ruger and then Paul Mauser's heirs coming in and suing the whole feaking lot of 'em for building bolt action rfles?
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 4:46:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 4:46:51 AM EST by ovrtym]

Originally Posted By chp5:
From Colt:

"The complaint alleges that Bushmaster, which has no legal right or authority to sell to the U.S. military, has intentionally and illegally incorporated the look and feel of the Colt M4 into its "M4 type" carbine. By duplicating the appearance of a real M4 weapon, and employing calculated marketing that blurs the distinction between Colt’s products and their own, Bushmaster deceptively markets its "M4 type" carbine to the civilian market and foreign governments, hoping that consumers will confuse the goodwill associated with the Colt brand with Bushmaster, according to the complaint. "

Oh gee - I really thought my BM was a Colt because it has a 14.5" barrel, a flat top and a barrel cut.

Well, if you can't beat 'em, sue 'em . . .




From the Bushmaster website:

"We are an U.S. Government Defense Contractor. After inspection and testing of samples for our must 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."

Someone here is telling a fib......
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 5:06:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
The more I learn about Colt the more I hate them.



I COULDNT AGREE MORE WITH THIS STATEMENT! @#CK COLT!!!!
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 5:06:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 6:37:40 AM EST by _DR]
There is no law that specifies you cannot have "similar" part numbers to part numbers of products from other companies. If you want uninfringable part numbers, then trademark them, although I don't think that would fly with the patent office as everyone would have to have gaps in their inventory parts databases if someone else was using a given number - not feasible in the real world, even if it is in Colt's fantasy world. Part numbers are just part numbers.


Colt is really, really pushing the whining factor by complaining about about "similar part numbers".


And the latest news I read, Colt splitting into 2 subsidiaries, Colt Defense and Colt for civilian production. Now they can offer watered down, neutered versions of everything to the public.

Nice try, but the only way I will buy one is one from Colt Defense. Nice rifles, but I don't want their "politically correct" version, thank you. Had enough of that crap already over the last 10 years, thank you very much.


Link Posted: 9/23/2004 5:33:48 AM EST
Sooooooooooooo,

If Colt made a XM8 clone and tried to sell it to the Gov/Civy market what do you think HK would do?

Hummmmmmmm?
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 6:03:26 AM EST
Mongo has it exactly right. Colt has, through management inepteness that can only be described as mind-boggling, thrown away its market. All it has left are patents and trademarks. Being unable and/or unwilling to compete in an open market, the only course to survival left open to it is to stifle its competitors.

What, if anything, can Colt management be thinking?* Why on earth any consumer (us) would care to defend these actions is beyond me.

The only hope left for Colt is a Harley - Davidson scenario. That is; the current management screws things up so badly the parent company gladly spins off the firearms division to new owners who actually understand the product and its customers. I for one plan to hasten the process along by assiduously seeing to it that Colt never gets a dime of my money. When (not "if" but "when") they lose the M4 contract, the collapse and restoration can begin.

SD

* Upon proofreading I discovered that I had used "Colt management" and "thinkng" in the same sentance. My bad.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 6:04:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
The more I learn about Colt the more I hate them.


+1
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 6:18:57 AM EST
1911, Single Action Army, AR15.

Three icons of American shooting that Colt had dead to rights. Colt's competitors stepped in and offered shooters these weapons with the features the shooters wanted at prices the shooters were happy to pay. Offering a product that a consumer wants at a price they are willing to pay makes good business. Add great customer service, wide distribution, and a warranty to it makes for customer loyalty.
Offer the same consumers a narrow range of the same products with fewer options, at a higher price than your competitors, narrow the distributions channel, long lead times on some products (SAA), etc. and rely on your name makes for what Colt is now.
There is no reason they are in the shape they are in other than the result of their unwillingness to listen to and drive the market. They were in the drivers seat, and they lost. I have no sympathy for them.

FWIW,
dusty
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 7:21:30 AM EST
Pretty soon we'll all be calling them "Abu Dhabi Carbines"
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 7:28:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 7:38:33 AM EST by Str8shot]
I think that I hate Colt's civilian manufacturing and sales policy as much as any rational individual but they have a perfect right to defend their product. As a matter of fact it's their duty to their stockholders to do just that! Here's a very brief history of Colt's involvement in the development of the M4 -

In 1984 the Army was looking for a replacement for all previous carbines. One that could use the then-new M855 cartridge.
Colt put together a design team and came up with the XM4.
In 1985 they were awarded a procurement contract to deliver 40 carbines for test and evaluation.
It was then that testing determined that many parts that were in common with the M16 would have to be redesigned, doing away with much of the commonality between the two. It was Colt that developed them. Most of you are aware of just what they are.
Colt's and the Army became engaged in a dispute about whose tech data had been used in the R&D of the M4, and also about the royalties involved. Colt won.
The result of this settlement was that the M4 was ruled a new "Family of Weapons" and that Colt provided the tech data to the gov't.
This resulted in a sole-source agreement that disallowed the M4 to come up for competitive bidding until 2009.
Bushmaster tried to worm its way around it and lost.
FNMI challenged it in Federal Court and lost! They did not appeal.
H&K is attempting to use some M4 spec parts in their attempt to get a piece of our defense budget without paying royalties to the rightful owner - Colt.
Colt has only defended what was awarded to them in the Federal Courts.

This info can be found in some detail in "Black Rifle II".

This happens all of the time out there in the big, bad world of business. If manufacturers didn't defend their products R&D would stagnate. The consumer would be forced to settle for second-rate products built on old technology because no manufacturer would invest his resources in something that another company could legally steal.

The Colt haters among us have a field day anytime subjects like this are posted on this site, but many of them either do not understand logic or are blinded by whatever irrationallity causes them to engage in their favorite passtime.

Poor, poor Bushmaster. Trying to steal a product from big bad Colt and getting caught! My heart bleeds for them. As to FNMI, screw their Belgian asses. WTF have they done for us civilians? They purposely underbid the M16A2 contract so that they could take it away from Colt, and as soon as they got their factory going they squealed like pigs to the govt, whining about (and getting) a price increase that would have had Colt winning the contract in the first place! And just check out H&K's civilian policies and customer service record if you think that Colt is bad.

People - learn the facts! Colt haters - get over it!
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 7:41:15 AM EST
that Armalite was a different company. It was a part of fairchild aircraft I believe
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 7:51:18 AM EST
You are only partially right. Colt may have trademark on "M4" (infringement on which is yet to be determined) but claiming to loose market share on a product they don't market to civilians is ludicrous. They have sole rights to sell the M4 to the military, so they're not loosing that either.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 7:54:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By mongo001:
bye, bye Colt.



About time!
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 7:58:34 AM EST
That's it. Tonight, I'm taking my 6920 and braking it in half. Colt is going down.

Just kidding.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:01:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By dusty3030:
1911, Single Action Army, AR15.

Three icons of American shooting that Colt had dead to rights. Colt's competitors stepped in and offered shooters these weapons with the features the shooters wanted at prices the shooters were happy to pay. Offering a product that a consumer wants at a price they are willing to pay makes good business. Add great customer service, wide distribution, and a warranty to it makes for customer loyalty.
Offer the same consumers a narrow range of the same products with fewer options, at a higher price than your competitors, narrow the distributions channel, long lead times on some products (SAA), etc. and rely on your name makes for what Colt is now.
There is no reason they are in the shape they are in other than the result of their unwillingness to listen to and drive the market. They were in the drivers seat, and they lost. I have no sympathy for them.

FWIW,
dusty



Amen.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:04:21 AM EST
Str8shot well said..

I once owned a colt SP1, sold it and bought two bushmaster.
I guess what really make me dislike colt is they are prevented dealers from selling LEO/PRE guns to the civilian market. Bushmaster, on the other hand, has NO problem selling so called evil weapons, and even going as far as posting this front page the day after sunset. So fuck colt not because they don’t make a nice AR, but because they have a shitty attitude towards the civilian market...

Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:17:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dan76:
You are only partially right. Colt may have trademark on "M4" (infringement on which is yet to be determined) but claiming to loose market share on a product they don't market to civilians is ludicrous. They have sole rights to sell the M4 to the military, so they're not loosing that either.



Ludicrous? A product that they don't market to civilians? 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?

I didn't address the trademark issue at all! As you pointed out, that's yet to be determined. The technology belongs to Colt until 2009 according to a determination made by the Federal Courts. What I tried to explain was their (Colt's) objection to the use of M4 technology in a competing product without the payment of royalties. Bushy attemped to, and H&K is attempting to, use Colt's M4 technology in a competing military bid in defiance of the M4 Addendum and the sole-source agreement between Colt's and the Army.

Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:34:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By jmart:

BTW, what's next? Remington suing Winchester, Weatherby suing Ruger and then Paul Mauser's heirs coming in and suing the whole feaking lot of 'em for building bolt action rfles?



The patents ran out on those designs way more than 50 years ago.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:36:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Parrandero:

Originally Posted By Darkest2000:

Originally Posted By Sharkman629:
I however think this is just a cheap attempt by Colt to stop other manufacturers who are giving them competition, especially in the civilian market.



As if HK actually cared about the civilian market...



As if Colt actually cared about the civilian market.



I'm merely pointing out that while Colt doesn't seem to care about the civilian market, neither does HK.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:46:38 AM EST
I've looked at Colt's press release, and it's typical of any industry. They can't compete on price or features, so they turn to the courts.

Colt made changes to the M4 with the intent to protect it as intellectual property, and prevent the FN situation from happening again. This is why Bushmaster does not offer Colt-dimensioned telestocks, "M4" feed ramps, or Colt "F-stamped" sights.

We all know that a Bushmaster differs significantly from a "Colt M4" in many areas. This will help Bushmaster.

Colt cannot protect part numbers as IP. Colt cannot control the use of "M4" or "M4 -type". Colt has also shot itself in the foot, since it has waited so long to file these charges. Failure to defend trademarks promptly leads to loss of almost all rights to keep them.

The best Colt can do is get the court to order Bushmaster to stop production while the suit is worked out. Sadly, that will probably be enough to severly hurt the company. :(

Link Posted: 9/23/2004 9:15:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sharkman629:

If HK takes an arguably inferior product and puts teh Colt name on it, then they deserve to be sued...

That's why we have Trademark law in the first place...

There are probably patent issues involved as well...


I would bet a good dollar that H&K parts are definitely not inferior to Colt. Regardless, if the allegations of part number tampering can be proven, I agree H&K should be sued. I however think this is just a cheap attempt by Colt to stop other manufacturers who are giving them competition, especially in the civilian market.



The HKM4 design is arguably inferior to the original Colt M4 design, with the proper gas system, et al...

HK is marketing a product that is most certainly NOT an AR15/M4 type in anything more than looks, and using Colt's name/recognition to pass it off as equiavalent to a more accurate, superior design...

Sue away Colt...

As for BM, all that will happen tot hem is that they will not be allowed to use any Colt features or mention M4 in their marketing....

HK, OTOH, is another story... An order halting development would be a good outcome there...
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 9:20:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By blikbok:
I've looked at Colt's press release, and it's typical of any industry. They can't compete on price or features, so they turn to the courts.

Colt made changes to the M4 with the intent to protect it as intellectual property, and prevent the FN situation from happening again. This is why Bushmaster does not offer Colt-dimensioned telestocks, "M4" feed ramps, or Colt "F-stamped" sights.

We all know that a Bushmaster differs significantly from a "Colt M4" in many areas. This will help Bushmaster.

Colt cannot protect part numbers as IP. Colt cannot control the use of "M4" or "M4 -type". Colt has also shot itself in the foot, since it has waited so long to file these charges. Failure to defend trademarks promptly leads to loss of almost all rights to keep them.

The best Colt can do is get the court to order Bushmaster to stop production while the suit is worked out. Sadly, that will probably be enough to severly hurt the company. :(




Colt CAN consider M4 as IP...

Now if it was just the 'Colt 4', then they could not...

Examples from the PC world: Pentium 4 is tradmarkable, 686 is not.

M4 is trademarkable, and that will be enforced.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 9:33:05 AM EST
How is Bushmaster a Military Defense Contractor if their parts don't meet military specifications? They don't run the MP test on ALL their parts like Colt does. They stamp their barrels with MP even though they don't MP every barrel? A Bushmaster rep said just that in another thread regarding manufacture differences.

Colt on the other hand DOES MP every barrel per military specification.

thanks,
Ron
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 9:36:35 AM EST
Ponies are lame anyway.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 9:45:04 AM EST
Dave_A:

I am no legal expert, but I have gathered a little bit of knowledge about IP, having fought it before as a much smaller entity than Bushmaster. :)

According to www.colt.com/mil/legal.asp, Colt has registered "M4" as a trademark, but has two big marks against it. First, they registered it in 7/8/2003. A search of this site's archives will show the mark in common, dilluted use long before 2003. Second, M4 is the type designation assigned by the US DOD. I would be very suprised it survived a challenge by Bushmaster, who has been using "M4" on its website since before 2003.

Also, I've noticed that RRA is calling their "M4" barrels "R-4" and DPMS is calling theirs "AP4". I wonder if Colt threatened them already? I suspect that Colt has talked with BM and hasn't been happy, and has therefore decided to sue.

Obviously, this is my unprofessional interpretation, but I'm not curious enough to pay for an IP lawyer-- again.

But the whole thing smacks of desparation from Colt.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 12:09:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By blikbok:
Dave_A:

Second, M4 is the type designation assigned by the US DOD.




Colt assigned the M4 designation and then the DoD adopted it.



Link Posted: 9/23/2004 12:41:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 1:03:58 PM EST by Str8shot]

Originally Posted By blikbok:


Colt made changes to the M4 with the intent to protect it as intellectual property, and prevent the FN situation from happening again. This is why Bushmaster does not offer Colt-dimensioned telestocks, "M4" feed ramps, or Colt "F-stamped" sights.





BULLSHIT!!

The changes made to the M4 were made by necessity. They were developed and implemented by Colt during the US Army trials long before the M4 was a gleam in Bushy's eye. The current "M4" telestock isn't even Colt's design. Colt does not deign to protect what is not theirs. It was designed a Picatinny by an arsenal employee, Lilly Ko.The extended feed ramps were implemented because of a feeding malfunction at high rates of fire, not to "protect intellectual property". The "F" stamped FSB's were implemented to correct a zeroing problem present on some examples with the flattop receiver. Bushy chose to cheap it out with an .040" higher front sight post. The "F" is stamped on the FSB so it can be identified as a higher FSB at a glance.

ian187,

Sorry, but you are not correct. The M4 designation was assigned by the DOD because the original intent for the M4 carbine was that of a rear echelon light weapon for non-frontline troops and those in vechicles such as tankers. It was intended to replace such carbines as the M1, M2, and M3 hence its next-in-progression designation.

As we can see, its use has drastically changed but its designation has not.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 12:42:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By Str8shot:
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.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 12:54:09 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 1:07:13 PM EST
I like COLTe products ..........BUT...........If Colte sued everyone out of bussiness or there was no competition for whatever reason.....AR Owners would be totally screwed !......I'm not saying they could do it ; I'm saying Have you ever had to deal with their customer serv. ??? It's not exactly civilian friendly .I think they should merge with NORINNCO they sale guns to anybody besides your everyday JOE also..................just my $0.02
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 1:14:50 PM EST
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.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top