Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/9/2005 5:35:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2005 5:37:13 PM EDT by GoatBoy]
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 6:19:56 PM EDT
Good for Bushmaster!
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 9:28:35 PM EDT
+1 for Bushmaster
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 9:32:14 PM EDT
Sorry....can't resist...


8.) Posting repeat topics with similar or slightly varying titles. While it may seem to be funny, the "spamming" of the community in this manner results in problems for users and management. (Multiple topics on important issues or discussions are acceptable, this only applies to topics which waste resources for no other reason except personal enjoyment or humor.)

Link Posted: 12/10/2005 3:43:31 AM EDT
The fact that Colt spent its resources on sucha dead-end matter speaks to its long and continuing
decine in market share, quality, and customer service. Colt, my virtue of its name recognition and early military contracts, squandered a golden opportunity to dominate these markets.

In my experience, run away from the products of any company that negatively attacks its competition. It's a sure sign that it cannot compete on the merits of its products and service.

The short version: Colt's actions and total defeat speak volumes.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:59:03 AM EDT
YAY for Bushmaster's win in court!

After the way Colt and Ruger have treated the law abiding civilian market, I do my best to avoid products from either manufacturer. Colt has neutered their AR-15 to where it is a royal PITA to drop a two stage trigger in it. Ruger (and this may have changed) did not allow civilian sales of their factory high capacity pistol magazines with the purchase of a new handgun AFTER the AWB sunsetted in '04. The only exceptions I would make would be for a 1911 or a Red/Blackhawk, assuming the deal is great. As for a new purchase from Colt or Ruger, forget it.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 6:42:53 AM EDT
This is good news for Bushmaster, HK, and any other company wanting to provide high quality AR's to both the civilian and military end-user.

Kudos.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 6:56:47 AM EDT
Does this remove any roadblocks or Bushy if they want .mil contract? Like Bushy, or not,, this is good for the market.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 9:14:01 AM EDT
Great news for Bushmaster, sorry Colt but you brought this upon yourself.

I'm not 100% clear on the ruling though.

Does this mean that a Bushmaster lower marked 'M16', 'M4' etc. would be legally possible -without Colt crying like a baby- or is it just OK for advertising use, or use as a generic moniker describing a specific type of black rifle; Like the way we use the term AR15?
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 10:17:16 AM EDT
LOL!!
Good for Bushmaster and the industry. Colt's arrogance just got bitch slapped. I love it!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 10:51:32 AM EDT
Dupe
ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260152





Yay for Bushmaster by the way. I thought it was truly arrogant for Colt to attempt to trademark a military designation, and am glad that the court ruled the way it did in this case.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:31:53 PM EDT
Knocked 'em down a peg!

I'm still a diehard Colt fan though!
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 7:29:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MichaelVain:
This is good news for Bushmaster, HK, and any other company wanting to provide high quality AR's to both the civilian and military end-user.

Kudos.



+1 - particularly for HK, which seemed to really be under the gun by Colt's legal machine.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 8:24:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 11:58:26 PM EDT
GO BUSHMASTER

Link Posted: 12/11/2005 2:40:20 AM EDT
+1 for Bushmaster. Colt needs to wake up and smell the CLP.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 11:03:51 AM EDT
The CLP? More like the CLAP, which has rotted it's brain. That does not add up since [ colt - bollocks = gelding ] anyway. As for the aforementioned HK, they can go hang IMO. The AWB has sunset and the bill against junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers is now law. Any gun manufacturer that still acts PC to civilians deserves to wither and die on the vine. If Colt wants to sue HK, let them. IMO it is like watching a drug dealer and a pimp trying to kill each other... WHO CARES!!! Ah, the joy of it. I will just kick back and watch the fun.

Way to go Bushmaster!

Shoot_Blue_Helmets

Link Posted: 12/11/2005 2:12:39 PM EDT
Outstanding!!

Way to go Bushy!!

David
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 2:50:39 PM EDT
Hey hey hey what about my 10+ page thread

http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260152
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 7:37:50 PM EDT
Thats great for bushmaster!!
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:53:43 PM EDT
Congrats bushmaster!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:24:00 AM EDT
Ding dong the witch is dead... Colt scmolt ... hooray Bushy!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 10:58:13 AM EDT
Go BUSHMASTER!!!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 11:59:09 AM EDT
Colt's just trying to protect any Trademark that they can. Anyone in business would probably try to do this. I know I would, if I was trying to save a company in trouble. Must be a lot of non-Colt owners out there. I'm Sorry............. Quality is not an issue with Colt. Unlike some other M4 style rifles. Colt is only guilty of running their business poorly........Bushmaster fan's - be nice.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 12:35:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 12:38:48 PM EDT by AK_Mike]
.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 2:48:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 2:52:34 PM EDT by Psychojeeper]
Outstanding news! I hate it when the "big companies" with a few govt. contracts tries to bully the rest of the industry. Besides, I think Bushmaster puts out a better product than Colt anyway.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 3:17:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Psychojeeper:
Besides, I think Bushmaster puts out a better product than Colt anyway.




Thats why I gotta buy a new receiver extension in order to put a Crane stock on, right?
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:47:51 PM EDT
So do I own a "REAL" M4 now?
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:50:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
So do I own a "REAL" M4 now?



Does it say "Property of US Government" and "Safe-Semi-Burst" on the side and come with a carbon copy of an enlistment contract? Then no.

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:31:03 AM EDT
Does this mean that we'll see rifles marked AR15 instead of M15 or LAR15 or XM15? I think it would be nice to see it happen. Well I guess I should go get me a Bushmaster now. I am glad that they stood up to Colt and didn't back down. Thanks Arvin
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 2:40:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Psychojeeper:
Besides, I think Bushmaster puts out a better product than Colt anyway.



hats


I have no problems adding new "mil-spec" parts to my Bushmaster A-3.
It's as good a rifle as a Colt, without paying for the "Pony"logo.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:15:58 PM EDT
How did you manage to get a SOPMOD stock onto a BFI receiver extension? Did you manage to convince them that the M16 carriers WERE legal for ARs? Colt knows that. Did you buy yours with MPI parts, parking under an "F" FSB?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:33:26 PM EDT
Maybe Colt will stop trying to sue their way to the top, and actually start catering to customers to stay in business.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 6:55:14 AM EDT
I like everything about that article, definitely positive to the manufactures of true spec ar 15 m4 type rifles. As far as i know a true m4 has a 14 1/2 in barrel and m4 feed ramps not a 16 in barrel, and not dremeled or standard ramps.Will companies make false disclaimers in that respect? Or am i wrong on my true m4 specs.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 9:54:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ghostshell07:
I like everything about that article, definitely positive to the manufactures of true spec ar 15 m4 type rifles. As far as i know a true m4 has a 14 1/2 in barrel and m4 feed ramps not a 16 in barrel, and not dremeled or standard ramps.Will companies make false disclaimers in that respect? Or am i wrong on my true m4 specs.hr

I beileve you are corect to your specs.

Congratulations bushie... I love my AR more and more everyday.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 6:04:43 PM EDT
cool
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 6:09:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By redhead522:
Maybe Colt will stop trying to sue their way to the top, and actually start catering to customers to stay in business.



They do cater to their customers. Mostly they sell weapons to the government. You don't give them enough money to rate their effort. Free market is a bitch, eh?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 10:19:54 AM EDT
I just don't get it. In my small part of the world, Colt wants more for their units than nearly any other mfg. Other mfg.s are putting out really nice complete units, parts & pieces that cost less $$, and as near as i can tell, the top end of just about whoevers does as well as the top end of my Colt unit. Some years ago I paid Colt for a history document and it took 3 years & a whole lot of UNnecessary hassle to finally get it. It was nothing if not absurd, cuz they told me they had received the payment years before. I think I finally got the paper after I contacted someone there and convinced them that I had been telliing anyone & everyone who asked about the unit that Colt gave the absolute worst service and care of any mfg I had experience with. Finally they replied and refunded the payment + a bit more. By then I didn't care and had probably shared that experience with a couple hundred other folks who like the ar style, plus alloYOUSE.

'course, I had an even WORSE experience with my 'The Black Lemon' from para'ordnance. That one took like 7 years to clear up. So much for 'wanting'.

Service is all part of the quality issue in my book, & I seem to get plenty of good service from the other product providers.
HG
Top Top