Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/21/2003 5:51:56 AM EDT
What Ya Think ?
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 6:44:18 AM EDT
According to Bushmaster they successfully filled a contract for a couple thousand M4s I belive. My understanding is that they went to the Air Force. I'm not confirming this just what I remember reading.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 7:30:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/21/2003 7:30:55 AM EDT by Mb121]
Well like SULACO said Bushmaster did have a contract at one point to produce M4 Carbines (whether they were M4's or M4A1's it wasn't really specified). But according to their website there carbines and rifles are with: U. S. Border Patrol U. S. Department of Defense U. S. Department of Energy U. S. Department of Parks and Recreation U. S. Customs U. S. Drug Enforcement Agency U. S. Marshall Service U. S. Secret Service [b]All Special Forces Units, SEALs, Rangers, Green Berets[/b] Alabama Highway Patrol California Department of Justice California Highway Patrol Florida Highway Patrol Utah State Highway Patrol Los Angeles Police Department Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Georgia Bureau of Investigation City of Philadelphia City of Salt Lake City of San Jose Police Department So I can only guess but I would have to say that they got the contract to produce them under the colt name and logo with the standard property of US Gov't on them as well.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 7:51:37 AM EDT
Sounds like they're stretching it a bit with "all Special Forces units." Highly doubtable.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 8:27:16 AM EDT
This is a topic that has been beat to death. Bushmaster DID have a contract to produce about 500 guns for the DOD. It was in the early 1980s long before the M-4 came about. The current Gov. contractors for the M-16 are FN and Colt. FN for the M-16A2 Colt for the M-4
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 8:39:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By scottfn308: This is a topic that has been beat to death. Bushmaster DID have a contract to produce about 500 guns for the DOD. It was in the early 1980s long before the M-4 came about. The current Gov. contractors for the M-16 are FN and Colt. FN for the M-16A2 Colt for the M-4
View Quote
Well, of course you would know better than Bushmaster themselves, right?
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 8:41:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 2Manchu: Sounds like they're stretching it a bit with "all Special Forces units." Highly doubtable.
View Quote
I would think if they were in the DOD specific units wouldnt necesarily know they were Bushies. Especially if manufactured under the Colt name/US Govt. property. I doubt even Bushmaster truly knows exactly "were" these weapons ended up within the Armed forces. JMHO though!
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 9:21:30 AM EDT
If you ask Colt about this, they'll deny that Bushmaster ever filled a contract for complete rifles to the military...at least according to the people that teach their armorers course.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 9:23:37 AM EDT
I believe but am far from certain that Bushmaster made a run of rifles for the military during the Gulf War. After all Bushie must make rifles for the military since they are 'mil-spec'- right. (What a load of crap. Bushmaster again proves no one ever went broke playing to the ignorance of the buying public - even otherwise bright AR purchasers.)
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 9:57:57 AM EDT
I had an issue M-16A2 one time that had a Bushmaster Lower on it. Does that mean that Bushmaster assembled the entire rifle, no... I don't remember bothering to check out the barrel markings. I just remember it because it was the first time I saw a lower reciver with something aside from Colt or FN.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 10:05:08 AM EDT
I have also read in more than one place Bushy M4's were used in Desert Storm and are in the US Military's possession. The reason they started is Colt could not produce enough and as fast. The reason they stopped Colt brought up a lawsuit on holding the patent and military contract for the M4. Kind of how Remington and the Singer sewing company made 1911's during WW2.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 11:36:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By scottfn308: This is a topic that has been beat to death. Bushmaster DID have a contract to produce about 500 guns for the DOD. It was in the early 1980s long before the M-4 came about. The current Gov. contractors for the M-16 are FN and Colt. FN for the M-16A2 Colt for the M-4
View Quote
Actually the Colt M4 Carbine came out around the mid 1980's and tests by the military started in 1986. It was first called the Abu Dhabi Carbine when it came into the market. Also the contract was in 1991, and it was for 3,000 M4 Carbines for the SF community. They were given to US Navy SEALs and the Army's SF teams.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 1:58:06 PM EDT
Kind of how Remington and the Singer sewing company made 1911's during WW2.
View Quote
The M16A1 I was issued at Ft Hood had the Singer Mfg. Co. logo on the lower, and true to their rep, it ran like a champ.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 2:51:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By scottfn308: The current Gov. contractors for the M-16 are FN and Colt. FN for the M-16A2 Colt for the M-4
View Quote
Correct. Only Colt can build M4s, as they are a patented invention. Previous major M16 contractors have included Singer, GM, H&R. There have been so many minor contractors, including Bushmaster and LaFrance.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 3:03:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/21/2003 3:05:26 PM EDT by Colt-653]
Bushmaster made about 350 M4 style carbines for NSW and SF around 1989/90. They are standard fixed handled A2 carbines with M4 barrels. Before they were released to certain units they had the Handguards, Buttstocks, Pistol grips and trigger guards replaced with Colt parts. The Bushmaster carbines were 3 position with Safe-Semi-Auto.... no Burst guns were delivered as far as I know. The first carbines delivered had the Colt Vinyl Acetate covered Aluminum stocks on them. They are Closer in Color(Dark Grey) to the older Colt's than current Bushmaster and Colt carbines. I've seen about 25-30 of them in use by a certain US group. Most are well used!
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 4:05:49 PM EDT
If any one can get a copy of soldier of fortunes first fighting firearms issue back in 1990 or 91 the article is titled"bushmaster builds a better M16"it contains details about the contract for the military.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 7:14:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RenegadeX: Correct. Only Colt can build M4s, as they are a patented invention.
View Quote
Patents Expire.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 7:39:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/21/2003 8:00:47 PM EDT by 2Manchu]
You know, it's funny that Watervliet Arsenal, in Watervliet, NY, has weapons records that date from present back to prior to the Civil War, and amongst the various manufacturers on file to ever produce weapons for the military, Bushmaster isn't one of them. Besides, why would a company like Bushmaster, a company who doesn't even manufacture most of their own parts, get a military contract?
Link Posted: 6/22/2003 6:05:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By notack:
Originally Posted By scottfn308: This is a topic that has been beat to death. Bushmaster DID have a contract to produce about 500 guns for the DOD. It was in the early 1980s long before the M-4 came about. The current Gov. contractors for the M-16 are FN and Colt. FN for the M-16A2 Colt for the M-4
View Quote
Well, of course you would know better than Bushmaster themselves, right?
View Quote
.. I guess so, since it was Bushmaster themselves that told me this. Correction, It was in the mid to late 1980s.
Link Posted: 6/22/2003 6:12:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Mb121:
Originally Posted By scottfn308: This is a topic that has been beat to death. Bushmaster DID have a contract to produce about 500 guns for the DOD. It was in the early 1980s long before the M-4 came about. The current Gov. contractors for the M-16 are FN and Colt. FN for the M-16A2 Colt for the M-4
View Quote
Actually the Colt M4 Carbine came out around the mid 1980's and tests by the military started in 1986. It was first called the Abu Dhabi Carbine when it came into the market. Also the contract was in 1991, and it was for 3,000 M4 Carbines for the SF community. They were given to US Navy SEALs and the Army's SF teams.
View Quote
The Black Rifle page 391. Colt model 727 the Abu Dhabi Carbine. In US trials. The page states it came in literally at press time. The book was printed in 1992
Link Posted: 6/22/2003 2:59:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/22/2003 7:35:05 PM EDT
3500?.....Too many zero's...Bushmaster only supplied about 350 complete carbines. Colt was also making the 727 and 723 carbine in limited #'s but was busy supplying the A2 rifle to the USMC and US Army in 1989 when bushmaster got the contract.......The Bushmaster guns were bought long before Desert Storm I.Some of them were used in Panama by CAG. Bushmaster and Armalite have both had DOD contracts for certain items over the years...just because they don't talk about it with the public doesn't mean they don't do it ;) The 727/Abu Dhabi carbine was purchased and given a NSN long before it was bought by Abu Dhabi under the XM4 prgram started in 1984. The USMC and NSW were some of the first units to receive them in 1986/87. US Army units started getting them in 1988/89 and USAF units updated certain GAU-5's around 1989/90. The first XM4 carbines were the 723's with A1 uppers with Case delectors like the Canadian C8's.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 9:21:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Lockedon: Patents Expire.
View Quote
Yes they do. This one has years to go. You can sue, as FN did, they lost, maybe you will have better luck. [i]"FNMI protested a sole-source award to Colt’s for M4 and M4A1 carbines. The Government based the sole-source determination upon a settlement it had reached in 1997 with Colt’s concerning technical data rights. The case goes back to a licensing agreement between Colt’s and the Government in 1967, much of which pertained to technical data, regarding the M-16 rifle and XM177 submachine gun. The Marine Corps found that the pieces were not weapons of choice; subsequently to the license agreement, Colt’s developed the M4 and M4A1 carbines, “ weapons derived from, and sharing a majority of their parts with, the M-16 rifle.” In 1997, the Government settled with Colt’s (M4 Addendum) as to Colt’s claimed ownership of technical data rights in the M4. In the instant case, FNMI sought injunctive relief, claiming that the Government’s decision to settle rather than litigate was arbitrary and capricious; it unjustifiably recognized Colt’s claimed rights, thereby giving away the Government’s rights in the data without authority. FNMI therefore contended that the sole-source solicitation violated the Competition in Contracting Act. The CoFC held that the Government’s decision to settle was not arbitrary and capricious, based as it was on reasonable legal conclusions and risk assessments. The court denied the injunction and dismissed the complaint[/i]
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 10:57:54 AM EDT
This is great stuff. I know there are reams on the M-16, but do any books cover the evolution of the M4?
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 11:34:22 AM EDT
My last assignment (Army) 1994-1997, I had Bushmaster lower receiver on my M16A2. It looked as if [i]only[/i] the receiver had been replaced as it didn't match the upper at all.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 12:38:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2003 12:40:39 PM EDT by aka_Krill]
Originally Posted By 2Manchu: Besides, why would a company like Bushmaster, a company who doesn't even manufacture most of their own parts, get a military contract?
View Quote
Well according to AR15.com Most other companies outsourse there parts. Bushmaster and Colt are most alike and out source very little. So what do you mean? Then who does do Bushmasters manufacturing, please enlighten us? [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/announcement.html?b=3&f=118&id=172[/url]
Link Posted: 7/6/2003 8:47:50 AM EDT
Only a redneck would care!!!
Link Posted: 7/7/2003 4:35:39 AM EDT
we had a member here who worked in an arms room and photographed all the different M4 configs he has seen over the years. awesome post. the M4 i was issued in the USMC was a bushmaster with a fixed handle and safe/semi/ full FCG. i remeber not liking it at the time. there was no real carbine doctrine at the time and a didnt care fot it at long range. great for climbing in and out of humvees though. i have seen USAF personnel with "M4s" that were nothing more than rebarreled M-16s with M4 furnature (pre A1) these all had slabsided lowers marked COLT AR-15 and had uppers berift of brass deflectors and forward assists. also it should be noted that all of the M16s used in ISMIT traning are bushmaster but this is probably more a choice of the FATS people and not the US Govt.
Link Posted: 7/7/2003 4:43:25 AM EDT
Dvldog, Do you have a link to that Arms Room Post ? Thanks..
Link Posted: 7/7/2003 5:19:00 AM EDT
I always thought that once the government has a company develop an item to their mil-spec and then award a contract, that the government owned the "patent" or idea for that item. Like the "Jeep" they were mfg'ed by Ford as well, the plans were given to Ford to make them to spec once they were approved and the demand rose. Just as the plans (blueprints) for the M16s were given to various manufacturers. The plans that are used by most AR15 gun makers are from prints redrawn from Colt's original blue prints IIRC just me .02
Link Posted: 7/13/2003 6:11:55 PM EDT
Bushmaster made a few but have never been a major player with the DOD. The current main contractors for AR's are Colt & FN.
Link Posted: 7/13/2003 7:31:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 800Mtrs: I always thought that once the government has a company develop an item to their mil-spec and then award a contract, that the government owned the "patent" or idea for that item. Like the "Jeep" they were mfg'ed by Ford as well, the plans were given to Ford to make them to spec once they were approved and the demand rose. Just as the plans (blueprints) for the M16s were given to various manufacturers. The plans that are used by most AR15 gun makers are from prints redrawn from Colt's original blue prints IIRC just me .02
View Quote
This is true. The M16A2 was developed at the request of the USMC and therefore the technical data package belongs to the DOD. That is why Colt was able to lose the contract and why FN was able to obtain it. The M4 and the M16A3/A4 is another matter as they have design changes that make it different from the A2. Therefore Colt is able to hold a patent and be the sole source contractor for those products. Once the patent expires, then who knows, maybe Colt will be in the same position they were in the late 80's.
Link Posted: 7/13/2003 8:01:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 2Manchu: ...Besides, why would a company like Bushmaster, a company who doesn't even manufacture most of their own parts, get a military contract?
View Quote
Interesting statment...what is your source for this information? And how are you defining "most"? Are you talking about fairly basic parts such as handguards, pins, screws...? Besides, if the chart referred to earlier is correct Bushmaster is outselling every other brand and it's not because they are the cheapest bidder. Furthermore, how much of a Colt or FN is made "In House"? I suppose the even make their own roll pins and buttstock screw (cough, cough)
Top Top