Bushmaster supplier of the M4 to the United States military? - Page 2

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bushmaster supplier of the M4 to the United States military? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 12/17/2005 8:03:18 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Boeing used to make the Bushmaster cannon.

Actually Hughes makes the M242 25mm Bushmaster Chaingun.

Hughes may make the Bushmaster Chaingun ............

But so does Alliant Techsystems: See them here

Alliant makes the ammo for the M242

www.atk.com/images_gunsystems_guns/25mm_M242_Bushmaster.jpg

Posted: 12/17/2005 9:05:32 AM EDT

[#2]

from the case:

"Defendant’s SMF ¶ 72; Plaintiff’s Opposing SMF ¶ 72.90 In the letter, Colt’s attorneys pointed out that
the proper “U.S. military designation for the carbine is “M4,” not “M16A2 M4.” Id. Bushmaster
responded by letter dated December 19, 1994 and submitted proof that it had completed a contract in 1990 to provide the Army with sixty-five M4-type carbines. Id. ¶ 73.91"

supplied in a contract. proven in court. that should be enough for the kool aid drinkers. probably not though

Posted: 12/17/2005 9:08:03 AM EDT

[#3]

FWIW: The Chaingun/Bushmaster family was created by the armament division of Hughes Helicopters. Hughes Helicopters was bought out by McDonnell Douglas in 1984. MD was bought out by Boeing in 1997. Boeing sold the ordnance division to ATK in 2002.

Posted: 12/17/2005 12:42:35 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

and submitted proof that it had completed a contract in 1990 to provide the Army with sixty-five M4-type carbines.

And haven't had one since...poor guys.

Posted: 12/17/2005 12:56:20 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:

and submitted proof that it had completed a contract in 1990 to provide the Army with sixty-five M4-type carbines.

And haven't had one since...poor guys.

Why did Colt try to merge with Bushmaster?

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:11:46 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

and submitted proof that it had completed a contract in 1990 to provide the Army with sixty-five M4-type carbines.

And haven't had one since...poor guys.

Why did Colt try to merge with Bushmaster?

The same reason my company "merges" with the competition...to shut then down.

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:14:28 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

and submitted proof that it had completed a contract in 1990 to provide the Army with sixty-five M4-type carbines.

And haven't had one since...poor guys.

Why did Colt try to merge with Bushmaster?

The same reason my company "merges" with the competition...to shut then down.

Or sue them out of existence. That one didn't work.

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:16:31 PM EDT

[#8]

I was curious on this issue as well, so I sent Bushmaster an e-mail and asked them if they sold rifles or components to the military, this was their response

"We do sell our rifles and products to the United States Government on a continuing basis, however the number of units and to whom is information that we do not release. Thank you for being a Bushmaster supporter."

Take it for what it's worth, but that's what they said.

O.K., let fly!!

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:42:45 PM EDT

[#9]

Orville Redenbacker made the original M-16 for Colt. In return they manufactured his popcorn popper from 1975 to September 1977. A total of 4,000 poppers were manufatured. Colt lost money on the deal and sued Orville. It was tied up in court until June of 1986. At that time Colt recieved the M-4 contract and could not supply popcorn poppers AND M-4's so they struck a deal with Bushmaster rather than retool from poppers to M-4's. I hope to hell this clears this up! billt.

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:43:34 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
I was curious on this issue as well, so I sent Bushmaster an e-mail and asked them if they sold rifles or components to the military, this was their response

"We do sell our rifles and products to the United States Government on a continuing basis, however the number of units and to whom is information that we do not release. Thank you for being a Bushmaster supporter."

Take it for what it's worth, but that's what they said.

O.K., let fly!!

Notice they carefully said United States Government as opposed to United States Military. BTW, they also said you can't put an M16 carrier in your AR.

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:45:13 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Orville Redenbacker made the original M-16 for Colt. In return they manufactured his popcorn popper from 1975 to September 1977. A total of 4,000 poppers were manufatured. Colt lost money on the deal and sued Orville. It was tied up in court until June of 1986. At that time Colt recieved the M-4 contract and could not supply popcorn poppers AND M-4's so they struck a deal with Bushmaster rather than retool from poppers to M-4's. I hope to hell this clears this up! billt.

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:46:45 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I was curious on this issue as well, so I sent Bushmaster an e-mail and asked them if they sold rifles or components to the military, this was their response

"We do sell our rifles and products to the United States Government on a continuing basis, however the number of units and to whom is information that we do not release. Thank you for being a Bushmaster supporter."

Take it for what it's worth, but that's what they said.

O.K., let fly!!

Notice they carefully said United States Government as opposed to United States Military. BTW, they also said you can't put an M16 carrier in your AR.

Threatening to pull resellers dealerships because they are selling certain rifles to the public is a really cool thing to do.

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:49:34 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Under request of the military, Bushmaster supplied sixty five of their XM15ES2 carbines with all of the physical characteristics of the future M4 Carbine. Their exact designation was "XM15ES2 M4".

The rifles were roll marked with the term M4, and this was long before M4 was trademarked by Colt, and before the M4 was officially adopted and supplied by Colt. Consider them prototype rifles that were made by Bushmaster for the military.

That does not mean the claims of soldiers seeing Bushmaster rifles in service are false. Bushmaster has supplied numerous parts to our military, and it would be no surprise for someone to run across their name. This is not skepticism, it is fact that was stated multiple times through out the Colt vs. Bushmaster case.

I WANT A PICTURE OF THOSE ROLL MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Colt began the XM4 project in 1985

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:49:43 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was curious on this issue as well, so I sent Bushmaster an e-mail and asked them if they sold rifles or components to the military, this was their response

"We do sell our rifles and products to the United States Government on a continuing basis, however the number of units and to whom is information that we do not release. Thank you for being a Bushmaster supporter."

Take it for what it's worth, but that's what they said.

O.K., let fly!!

Notice they carefully said United States Government as opposed to United States Military. BTW, they also said you can't put an M16 carrier in your AR.

Threatening to pull resellers dealerships because they are selling certain rifles to the public is a really cool thing to do.

Got my 6920 easy enough. Perhaps you should check out this link.

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:55:01 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was curious on this issue as well, so I sent Bushmaster an e-mail and asked them if they sold rifles or components to the military, this was their response

"We do sell our rifles and products to the United States Government on a continuing basis, however the number of units and to whom is information that we do not release. Thank you for being a Bushmaster supporter."

Take it for what it's worth, but that's what they said.

O.K., let fly!!

Notice they carefully said United States Government as opposed to United States Military. BTW, they also said you can't put an M16 carrier in your AR.

Threatening to pull resellers dealerships because they are selling certain rifles to the public is a really cool thing to do.

Got my 6920 easy enough. Perhaps you should check out this link.

A year ago that was not Colt's tune, now was it. So they changed their policy within the last few weeks. Only took a year, too.

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:57:12 PM EDT

[#16]

.

Posted: 12/17/2005 1:59:20 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was curious on this issue as well, so I sent Bushmaster an e-mail and asked them if they sold rifles or components to the military, this was their response

"We do sell our rifles and products to the United States Government on a continuing basis, however the number of units and to whom is information that we do not release. Thank you for being a Bushmaster supporter."

Take it for what it's worth, but that's what they said.

O.K., let fly!!

Notice they carefully said United States Government as opposed to United States Military. BTW, they also said you can't put an M16 carrier in your AR.

Threatening to pull resellers dealerships because they are selling certain rifles to the public is a really cool thing to do.

Got my 6920 easy enough. Perhaps you should check out this link.

A year ago that was not Colt's tune, now was it. So they changed their policy within the last few weeks. Only took a year, too.

And Bushy still can't seem to stake carriers properly or install barrels correctly, huh? They've only been doing it for how many years?

Posted: 12/17/2005 2:05:47 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was curious on this issue as well, so I sent Bushmaster an e-mail and asked them if they sold rifles or components to the military, this was their response

"We do sell our rifles and products to the United States Government on a continuing basis, however the number of units and to whom is information that we do not release. Thank you for being a Bushmaster supporter."

Take it for what it's worth, but that's what they said.

O.K., let fly!!

Notice they carefully said United States Government as opposed to United States Military. BTW, they also said you can't put an M16 carrier in your AR.

Threatening to pull resellers dealerships because they are selling certain rifles to the public is a really cool thing to do.

Got my 6920 easy enough. Perhaps you should check out this link.

A year ago that was not Colt's tune, now was it. So they changed their policy within the last few weeks. Only took a year, too.

And Bushy still can't seem to stake carriers properly or install barrels correctly, huh? They've only been doing it for how many years?

Can't defend their business practices so you have to change the subject. Nice.

Company policy that prevents people from buying your product and pisses off your potential customers.

Posted: 12/17/2005 2:09:02 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was curious on this issue as well, so I sent Bushmaster an e-mail and asked them if they sold rifles or components to the military, this was their response

"We do sell our rifles and products to the United States Government on a continuing basis, however the number of units and to whom is information that we do not release. Thank you for being a Bushmaster supporter."

Take it for what it's worth, but that's what they said.

O.K., let fly!!

Notice they carefully said United States Government as opposed to United States Military. BTW, they also said you can't put an M16 carrier in your AR.

Threatening to pull resellers dealerships because they are selling certain rifles to the public is a really cool thing to do.

Got my 6920 easy enough. Perhaps you should check out this link.

A year ago that was not Colt's tune, now was it. So they changed their policy within the last few weeks. Only took a year, too.

And Bushy still can't seem to stake carriers properly or install barrels correctly, huh? They've only been doing it for how many years?

Can't defend their business practices so you have to change the subject. Nice.

Company policy that prevents people from buying your product and pisses off your potential customers.

Apparently, it's not their policy now so who's really grasping for straws?

Posted: 12/17/2005 2:14:15 PM EDT

[#20]

It took a year. Colt doesn't give a crap about the civilian market. It shows.

Posted: 12/17/2005 2:17:22 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Jut read an article in a magazine about Bushmaster M4, I cant recall what magazine but what caught my eye was this catchy line near the end, the author writes, “besides Colt Bushmaster is the only supplier of the M4 to the United States military.”

Posted: 12/17/2005 2:18:45 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Bushmaster: sole supplier to the US Military!

tinypic.com/ipmxxz.gif
tinypic.com/ipmx43.gif tinypic.com/ipmx6o.gif tinypic.com/ipmxar.gif tinypic.com/ipmxcp.gif tinypic.com/ipmxdv.gif tinypic.com/ipmxjs.gif

tinypic.com/ipmxxz.gif
tinypic.com/ipmx43.gif tinypic.com/ipmx6o.gif tinypic.com/ipmxar.gif tinypic.com/ipmxcp.gif tinypic.com/ipmxdv.gif tinypic.com/ipmxjs.gif

It's pretty stupid having anything the military buys coming from one supplier.

Posted: 12/17/2005 2:19:14 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
It took a year. Colt doesn't give a crap about the civilian market. It shows.

And I could just as easily say that Bushy only wants to make a buck in the lucrative civilian market and doesn't care about our servicemen and women.

BTW, AM General won't sell ya a Hummer. Do you hate them, too?

Posted: 12/17/2005 2:26:19 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It took a year. Colt doesn't give a crap about the civilian market. It shows.

And I could just as easily say that Bushy only wants to make a buck in the lucrative civilian market and doesn't care about our servicemen and women.

BTW, AM General won't sell ya a Hummer. Do you hate them, too?

So why did Colt change it's mind then if that is such a good policy? Because they realized they screwed up. And it only took a year to figure out!

Posted: 12/17/2005 2:52:14 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It took a year. Colt doesn't give a crap about the civilian market. It shows.

And I could just as easily say that Bushy only wants to make a buck in the lucrative civilian market and doesn't care about our servicemen and women.

BTW, AM General won't sell ya a Hummer. Do you hate them, too?

So why did Colt change it's mind then if that is such a good policy? Because they realized they screwed up. And it only took a year to figure out!

You're operating under the assumption that I thought it was a good policy. Ironically, it was never enforced so was it ever really a policy? So how do you feel about Bushy's policy of charging a premium for mediocre QC, shortcuts, and poor build quality?

Posted: 12/17/2005 2:57:49 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It took a year. Colt doesn't give a crap about the civilian market. It shows.

And I could just as easily say that Bushy only wants to make a buck in the lucrative civilian market and doesn't care about our servicemen and women.

BTW, AM General won't sell ya a Hummer. Do you hate them, too?

So why did Colt change it's mind then if that is such a good policy? Because they realized they screwed up. And it only took a year to figure out!

You're operating under the assumption that I thought it was a good policy. Ironically, it was never enforced so was it ever really a policy? So how do you feel about Bushy's policy of charging a premium for mediocre QC, shortcuts, and poor build quality?

So you admit that Colt screwed up. Good. We are making progress. Now you just need to stop trying to change the subject when you are proven wrong.

Edit: Seems to me there is a thread floating around that talks about Colts barrel problems. I don't have the link, but I assume you've seen it and passed around the coolaid.

Posted: 12/17/2005 3:02:08 PM EDT

[#27]

I'll still keep buying Colt !! .....

They Work for me !!

Posted: 12/17/2005 3:02:29 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It took a year. Colt doesn't give a crap about the civilian market. It shows.

And I could just as easily say that Bushy only wants to make a buck in the lucrative civilian market and doesn't care about our servicemen and women.

BTW, AM General won't sell ya a Hummer. Do you hate them, too?

So why did Colt change it's mind then if that is such a good policy? Because they realized they screwed up. And it only took a year to figure out!

You're operating under the assumption that I thought it was a good policy. Ironically, it was never enforced so was it ever really a policy? So how do you feel about Bushy's policy of charging a premium for mediocre QC, shortcuts, and poor build quality?

So you admit that Colt screwed up. Good. We are making progress. Now you just need to stop trying to change the subject when you are proven wrong.

Don't think I said anything either way. You sure seem reluctant to answer any of the questions I've posed to you, though. Strange.

Posted: 12/17/2005 3:04:42 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I'll still keep buying Colt !! .....

I may buy one too, if I find a good deal on one. I, unlike others around here, own lots of different brands of firearms. If you only own one brand (and worship at the alter), you really are missing out on some very good products.

Posted: 12/17/2005 3:07:24 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It took a year. Colt doesn't give a crap about the civilian market. It shows.

And I could just as easily say that Bushy only wants to make a buck in the lucrative civilian market and doesn't care about our servicemen and women.

BTW, AM General won't sell ya a Hummer. Do you hate them, too?

So why did Colt change it's mind then if that is such a good policy? Because they realized they screwed up. And it only took a year to figure out!

You're operating under the assumption that I thought it was a good policy. Ironically, it was never enforced so was it ever really a policy? So how do you feel about Bushy's policy of charging a premium for mediocre QC, shortcuts, and poor build quality?

So you admit that Colt screwed up. Good. We are making progress. Now you just need to stop trying to change the subject when you are proven wrong.

Don't think I said anything either way. You sure seem reluctant to answer any of the questions I've posed to you, though. Strange.

See my edit above if you would like to discuss quality control. How about large pivot holes? Sear blocks in lowers, etc.. We could go around and around. I am open minded enough to perhaps own a Colt in the future. Can you say the same about Bushmaster or any other brand of AR? I seriously doubt it.

Posted: 12/17/2005 3:08:42 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll still keep buying Colt !! .....

I may buy one too, if I find a good deal on one. I, unlike others around here, own lots of different brands of firearms. If you only own one brand (and worship at the alter), you really are missing out on some very good products.

My two favorite carbines are a Colt 6920 and a mutt comprised of an RRA lower and an LMT upper. I've had enough issues with Bushy that I don't plan on going that route again.

Posted: 12/17/2005 3:10:19 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It took a year. Colt doesn't give a crap about the civilian market. It shows.

And I could just as easily say that Bushy only wants to make a buck in the lucrative civilian market and doesn't care about our servicemen and women.

BTW, AM General won't sell ya a Hummer. Do you hate them, too?

So why did Colt change it's mind then if that is such a good policy? Because they realized they screwed up. And it only took a year to figure out!

You're operating under the assumption that I thought it was a good policy. Ironically, it was never enforced so was it ever really a policy? So how do you feel about Bushy's policy of charging a premium for mediocre QC, shortcuts, and poor build quality?

So you admit that Colt screwed up. Good. We are making progress. Now you just need to stop trying to change the subject when you are proven wrong.

Edit: Seems to me there is a thread floating around that talks about Colts barrel problems. I don't have the link, but I assume you've seen it and passed around the coolaid.

I've seen and participated in the thread. The difference is that Colt identified and fixed the problem. Can't say that for Bushy now can we?

Posted: 12/17/2005 3:12:58 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
How about large pivot holes? Sear blocks in lowers, etc.. We could go around and around.

You're absolutely right we could. How about those proprietary buffer tubes and barrels not properly parked under the FSB? All of it matters not to me, though, as I'm just interested in buying the one that's going to run and that hasn't proven to be Bushy for me.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bushmaster supplier of the M4 to the United States military? (Page 2 of 2)

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us