User Panel
Posted: 12/24/2008 6:46:26 AM EDT
"Sabre Defence Industries, LLC, a government contractor for the manufacture of machine gun parts and accessories and commercial XR15 rifles, has been awarded an IDIQ contract for a minimum of 4,952 M16A3 and 702 M16A4 rifles to support the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and foreign military customers.
Nine bids were received. Sabre becomes only the third company in the 45-year M16 history, besides Colt and FN, to be awarded a contract to supply a Mil-Spec M16 to the U.S. government. The M16 project will take place at Sabre Defence's Nashville, Tennessee facility and is expected to be completed by end of December, 2010." What if anything does this signify in relation to Colt and Colt's M-16 military contracts? Why is the G'ment going to a third source instead of asking more from Colt and FN? I am genuinely curious and am not disparaging the Colt brand. |
|
The military has finally realized that optics are the way of the future. And there are a lot of A2 uppers to replace. Colt and FN probably have a pretty good output, but it would be small compared to, say, M1 Garand production during WWII.
No mention of Hydramatic? |
|
The US Government is trying to equip its own troops, replace battle losses and worn equipment, and most demanding –– trying to fleet outfit the Iraqi and Afghan military and police with M16s and M4s.
Colt and FN cannot keep up with demand. The government has been buying "Commercial Equivalents" (Rock River that I have seen for the Iraqis, and other governments and private companies have bought Bushmaster). Same position as WWII when all kinds of different companies made weapons (Frigidaire, Whirlpool, Singer, Union Switch and Signal, Remington-Rand, Rock-Ola, International Harvester, etc.). The USG owns the M16 Technical Data Package and solicits suppliers who can manufacture to MILSPEC. |
|
The Government has not bought any M16's from RRA. Government contractors and Law enforcement agencies can buy from anyone they want to risk their lives with. RRA has not been approved and are NOT Mil Spec. Bushmaster had a contract and lost it for many reasons including, NOT Mil Spec.
I am guessing Sabre defense was the "low bidder". Good luck to those GI's that get a Sabre defense rifle. |
|
RRA recently was awarded a contract to supply the DEA and FBI with tactical carbines, but it is true that RRA is not a 4th source of M-16's for the US military. At least not an official supplier from what I have read, anyway.
I see you have a low opinion of Sabre Defense Industry. From what I can tell SDI's civilian XR-15s are high priced and highly rated. SDI has been making machine gun barrels for our military (50 cal M2 for example) for years. Are our boys in danger when they shoot an M2? |
|
Actually if everything goes right, Sabre Defence will be the fifth company to supply mil-spec M16 for US military issue. They are the sixth company to be awarded such a contract. H&R and GM-Hydramatic produced M16A1 during the Vietnam War.
Sabre's contract is from the same solicitation for M16A3 and M16A4 that resulted in contract awards to FN, Colt, and Bushmaster back in December 2007. The Army wanted to expand the production base, and set aside a portion of the contract for up to two "small businesses". FN won the non-setaside portion of the contract. Bushmaster's award was withdrawn before the first rifle was ever delivered. It appears that Bushmaster no longer qualifies as a "small business" after their acquisition by Cerberus. Later, Colt backed out of their award when TACOM wouldn't let them increase their prices. Still determined to fill the small business setaside, TACOM gave Sabre the nod. Sabre's prices were the highest of the four companies awarded contracts. |
|
Quoted:
I am guessing Sabre defense was the "low bidder". Good luck to those GI's that get a Sabre defense rifle. So are you saying that Sabre lacks the ability to produce a rifle to the government spec and was awarded the contract despite this? |
|
The US Government (the Defense Security Cooperation Agency) has purchased Rock Rivers for Iraq under the Foreign Military Sales Program, not for United States military use. I don't know how the Georgians got their rifles (I think they were Bushmasters as well).
I was issued a GM Hydromatic M16A1 when I went through Infantry One Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort Benning in 1979. |
|
Quoted:
Sabre Defense Industries join Colt, FN and Bushmaster in the exclusive M-16 club |
|
i love it!!!
can you immagin how pissed colt koolaid drinkers are now that they are no long the only true milspec builder in town! |
|
Quoted:
i love it!!! can you immagin how pissed colt koolaid drinkers are now that they are no long the only true milspec builder in town! Ironically, I'd imagine such people would be welcoming more rifles built to spec. Though it is important to note that the "spec" is a base standard and not necessarily the best. |
|
Quoted:
i love it!!! can you immagin how pissed colt koolaid drinkers are now that they are no long the only true milspec builder in town! no one is "pissed". A good made gun is a good made gun. The fact that we all in this forum like colt is because its made right. take your snide remarks to GD or the tech forum |
|
With the car industry the way it is, GM should consider getting back into the weapons biz.
|
|
Quoted:
With the car industry the way it is, GM should consider getting back into the weapons biz. I'll take the low bidder over some union hack putting it together. |
|
Quoted:
With the car industry the way it is, GM should consider getting back into the weapons biz. Cerberus who owns Chrysler also owns Remington, Bushmaster, DPMS, Cobb and Marlin. |
|
Quoted:
i love it!!! can you immagin how pissed colt koolaid drinkers are now that they are no long the only true milspec builder in town! I don't have a problem, Sabre makes some good stuff. It seems you are far more biased then we koolaide drinkers are. |
|
Quoted:
Actually if everything goes right, Sabre Defence will be the fifth company to supply mil-spec M16 for US military issue. They are the sixth company to be awarded such a contract. H&R and GM-Hydramatic produced M16A1 during the Vietnam War. Sabre's contract is from the same solicitation for M16A3 and M16A4 that resulted in contract awards to FN, Colt, and Bushmaster back in December 2007. The Army wanted to expand the production base, and set aside a portion of the contract for up to two "small businesses". FN won the non-setaside portion of the contract. Bushmaster's award was withdrawn before the first rifle was ever delivered. It appears that Bushmaster no longer qualifies as a "small business" after their acquisition by Cerberus. Later, Colt backed out of their award when TACOM wouldn't let them increase their prices. Still determined to fill the small business setaside, TACOM gave Sabre the nod. Sabre's prices were the highest of the four companies awarded contracts. Wow, great information. That is just the kind of info I am looking for. Do you have a link to the source of this info? I am trying to learn more about SDI since I heard about them being awarded this US Gov contract. Thanks |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually if everything goes right, Sabre Defence will be the fifth company to supply mil-spec M16 for US military issue. They are the sixth company to be awarded such a contract. H&R and GM-Hydramatic produced M16A1 during the Vietnam War. Sabre's contract is from the same solicitation for M16A3 and M16A4 that resulted in contract awards to FN, Colt, and Bushmaster back in December 2007. The Army wanted to expand the production base, and set aside a portion of the contract for up to two "small businesses". FN won the non-setaside portion of the contract. Bushmaster's award was withdrawn before the first rifle was ever delivered. It appears that Bushmaster no longer qualifies as a "small business" after their acquisition by Cerberus. Later, Colt backed out of their award when TACOM wouldn't let them increase their prices. Still determined to fill the small business setaside, TACOM gave Sabre the nod. Sabre's prices were the highest of the four companies awarded contracts. Wow, great information. That is just the kind of info I am looking for. Do you have a link to the source of this info? I am trying to learn more about SDI since I heard about them being awarded this US Gov contract. Thanks Too bad it's mostly bullshit. Don't hold your breath for a link. |
|
Quoted:
i love it!!! can you immagin how pissed colt koolaid drinkers are now that they are no long the only true milspec builder in town! You must have been one of the guys running around talking about the LWRC IAR 6 months ago jerking off to Futureweapons. How about you let Sabre ship a single rifle against the contract, or hell, maybe even just a first article before you roll out the welcoming committee. |
|
Quoted:
The US Government is trying to equip its own troops, replace battle losses and worn equipment, and most demanding –– trying to fleet outfit the Iraqi and Afghan military and police with M16s and M4s. Colt and FN cannot keep up with demand. The government has been buying "Commercial Equivalents" (Rock River that I have seen for the Iraqis, and other governments and private companies have bought Bushmaster). Same position as WWII when all kinds of different companies made weapons (Frigidaire, Whirlpool, Singer, Union Switch and Signal, Remington-Rand, Rock-Ola, International Harvester, etc.). The USG owns the M16 Technical Data Package and solicits suppliers who can manufacture to MILSPEC. More bullshit. Where do you guys get this crap? |
|
Quoted:
i love it!!! can you immagin how pissed colt koolaid drinkers are now that they are no long the only true milspec builder in town! why? [>:/] I'm not pissed at all. I wish there were more companies with a mil contract: this way they would learn how to build a quality rifle and companies like Oly would not even exist btw Sabre's customers should now be considered kool aid drinkers too |
|
didn't notice this was the colt forum, I stand by my comment and will take any other comments to the tech forum
colts are fine rifles but far too many people get wrapped up in some spec that some douchbag GS15 came up with. I apologize to those that I may have rubbed the wrong way. I work at one of the largest testing facilities in the country and am surrounded by idiots who adhere blindly to specs regardless of if they are working or not |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
With the car industry the way it is, GM should consider getting back into the weapons biz. I'll take the low bidder over some union hack putting it together. I dare you to ask which union represents Colt's line employees. I double dog dare ya. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With the car industry the way it is, GM should consider getting back into the weapons biz. I'll take the low bidder over some union hack putting it together. I dare you to ask which union represents Colt's line employees. I double dog dare ya. I see. I certainly hope Sabre and FN don't go down that same road. It helps me understand why Colt parts are easily double everyone else's, specs be damned. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With the car industry the way it is, GM should consider getting back into the weapons biz. I'll take the low bidder over some union hack putting it together. I dare you to ask which union represents Colt's line employees. I double dog dare ya. I see. I certainly hope Sabre and FN don't go down that same road. It helps me understand why Colt parts are easily double everyone else's, specs be damned. Considering the price quoted for an M4 in that thread was $1500, I wouldn't exactly consider it to be a mecca for accurate information. |
|
Quoted:
i love it!!! can you immagin how pissed colt koolaid drinkers are now that they are no long the only true milspec builder in town! Hey, it's a genuine asshat. We haven't had too many of these in a while! |
|
ALL YOUR PAGE 2 ARE BELONG TO ME!
Quoted:
Quoted:
The US Government is trying to equip its own troops, replace battle losses and worn equipment, and most demanding –– trying to fleet outfit the Iraqi and Afghan military and police with M16s and M4s. Colt and FN cannot keep up with demand. The government has been buying "Commercial Equivalents" (Rock River that I have seen for the Iraqis, and other governments and private companies have bought Bushmaster). Same position as WWII when all kinds of different companies made weapons (Frigidaire, Whirlpool, Singer, Union Switch and Signal, Remington-Rand, Rock-Ola, International Harvester, etc.). The USG owns the M16 Technical Data Package and solicits suppliers who can manufacture to MILSPEC. More bullshit. Where do you guys get this crap? Do you know Sinister? Ever broke bread with him? I do and I have. The man is a great American who has served his country for a very long time in some very unpleasant places and he knows more about weapons and their use than most of the rest of us. . . . . I consider him a friend. Tread carefully, brother. Sinister knows his shit. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
i love it!!! can you immagin how pissed colt koolaid drinkers are now that they are no long the only true milspec builder in town! no one is "pissed". A good made gun is a good made gun. The fact that we all in this forum like colt is because its made right. take your snide remarks to GD or the tech forum Nice screen name, troll. Combining M4 (who came up with the concept that became the M4?) and HK33, that's some clever stuff. Really. Do you own either? And not in Second Life or whatever D&D variant you and your buddies like to play in your parents' basement. Go back to the GD, . |
|
SDI has been making barrels for the US military for a long time, including the M2 50 cal. This newly awarded contract could have been political or based on the military's familiarity with the company, who knows? But I don't think it was just so the military could get the cheapest, lowest-bid rfiles they could get their hands on. SDI has a solid reputation for such a small company. Hopefully this contract will make them even better and stronger and enhance their brand awareness.
P.S. I do own an SDI XR-15A3 LW (and i like it very much, thank you), just so you know where I am coming from. Got Sabre? I got mine. |
|
Quoted:
ALL YOUR PAGE 2 ARE BELONG TO ME! Quoted:
Quoted:
The US Government is trying to equip its own troops, replace battle losses and worn equipment, and most demanding –– trying to fleet outfit the Iraqi and Afghan military and police with M16s and M4s. Colt and FN cannot keep up with demand. The government has been buying "Commercial Equivalents" (Rock River that I have seen for the Iraqis, and other governments and private companies have bought Bushmaster). Same position as WWII when all kinds of different companies made weapons (Frigidaire, Whirlpool, Singer, Union Switch and Signal, Remington-Rand, Rock-Ola, International Harvester, etc.). The USG owns the M16 Technical Data Package and solicits suppliers who can manufacture to MILSPEC. More bullshit. Where do you guys get this crap? Do you know Sinister? Ever broke bread with him? I do and I have. The man is a great American who has served his country for a very long time in some very unpleasant places and he knows more about weapons and their use than most of the rest of us. . . . . I consider him a friend. Tread carefully, brother. Sinister knows his shit. 1. Colt and FN aren't out of capacity. Sabre Defense was awarded a contract because there was a SBA set-aside to go to a company that qualified as a Small Business. It had nothing to do with FN or Colt. Bushmaster initially was awarded a similar contract but it was determined that they were not a small business. 2. Colt owns the M16 TDPs, not the USG. I have no doubts about his integrity or qualifications. All the more reason to provide him with the appropriate information necessary to carry forward with great honor. |
|
From the following suit between Colt and Bushmaster over the use of "M4" (which Colt lost) you will see that as far back as 1990 the military was buying from Bushmaster.
www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/06-1696-01A.pdf |
|
Quoted:
From the following suit between Colt and Bushmaster over the use of "M4" (which Colt lost) you will see that as far back as 1990 the military was buying from Bushmaster. www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/06-1696-01A.pdf In 1990 (presumibly because Colt's UAW employees just finished a 4 year strike, Colt was headed for bankruptcy, and as a result FN had been awarded their first M16 contract), the Military purchased 65 M4s from Bushmaster. The USG was subsequently sued for releasing the Colt proprietary TDP improperly. No other Bushmaster weapons have been purchased by the US Military. Individual USG agencies are free to procure whatever weapons they'd like. |
|
Quoted:
From the following suit between Colt and Bushmaster over the use of "M4" (which Colt lost) you will see that as far back as 1990 the military was buying from Bushmaster. www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/06-1696-01A.pdf A BM is a BM is a BM. . . . |
|
Quoted:
SDI has been making barrels for the US military for a long time, including the M2 50 cal. This newly awarded contract could have been political or based on the military's familiarity with the company, who knows? But I don't think it was just so the military could get the cheapest, lowest-bid rfiles they could get their hands on. SDI has a solid reputation for such a small company. Hopefully this contract will make them even better and stronger and enhance their brand awareness. P.S. I do own an SDI XR-15A3 LW (and i like it very much, thank you), just so you know where I am coming from. Got Sabre? I got mine. Before it was sold to the British company Sabre, the TN facility was owned by RAMO Defense, a great company. SDI does make good stuff. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually if everything goes right, Sabre Defence will be the fifth company to supply mil-spec M16 for US military issue. They are the sixth company to be awarded such a contract. H&R and GM-Hydramatic produced M16A1 during the Vietnam War. Sabre's contract is from the same solicitation for M16A3 and M16A4 that resulted in contract awards to FN, Colt, and Bushmaster back in December 2007. The Army wanted to expand the production base, and set aside a portion of the contract for up to two "small businesses". FN won the non-setaside portion of the contract. Bushmaster's award was withdrawn before the first rifle was ever delivered. It appears that Bushmaster no longer qualifies as a "small business" after their acquisition by Cerberus. Later, Colt backed out of their award when TACOM wouldn't let them increase their prices. Still determined to fill the small business setaside, TACOM gave Sabre the nod. Sabre's prices were the highest of the four companies awarded contracts. Wow, great information. That is just the kind of info I am looking for. Do you have a link to the source of this info? I am trying to learn more about SDI since I heard about them being awarded this US Gov contract. Thanks Too bad it's mostly bullshit. Don't hold your breath for a link. Original solicitation: W52H09-07-R-0205 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
B. THIS SOLICITATION IS A PARTIAL SMALL BUSINESS SETASIDE (30%). THE REMAINING 70% OF THE INITIAL GUARANTEED MINIMUM QUANTITY IS FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LICENSING AGREEMENT THAT RESTRICTS PRODUCTION TO THE UNITED STATES AND U.S. TERRITORIES. 2. ACQUISITION METHODOLOGY B. THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS ON AWARDING AT LEAST TWO BUT NO MORE THAN THREE 3-YEAR INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) TYPE CONTRACTS. Bushmaster contract: W52H09-08-D-0120 Bushmaster delivery order showing quantity and prices Bushmaster cancellation FN Manufacturing contract: W52H09-08-D-0121 Colt contract: W52H09-08-D-0122 Colt delivery order showing quantity and prices Colt cancellation Sabre Defence contract: W52H09-08-D-0293 Sabre Defence delivery order showing quantity and prices |
|
Quoted:
Later, Colt backed out of their award when TACOM wouldn't let them increase their prices. Colt claimed a pricing mistake, not that TACOM wouldn't let them increase their prices. As a result, the larger delivery order was withdrawn. There remains however a single FMS delivery order to keep the contract open. |
|
Quoted:
2. Colt owns the M16 TDPs, not the USG. Yes, Colt owns the M16 TDP, but the US Army bought a license for it way back in 1967. That's how the Army was able to legally second-source production of the M16A1 to H&R and GM-Hydramatic, the M16A2 through M16A4 to FN, and now the M16A3 and M16A4 to Sabre. (It would have covered the abortive Bushmaster contract as well.) Colt argued that the M4 wasn't covered under the 1967 licensing agreement, and got the Army to sign off on the "M4 Addendum" stating as much. However, after June 30, 2009, the M4 TDP will also be covered under the 1967 licensing agreement. At that point, the Army can second-source M4 production as well. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Later, Colt backed out of their award when TACOM wouldn't let them increase their prices. Colt claimed a pricing mistake, not that TACOM wouldn't let them increase their prices. As a result, the larger delivery order was withdrawn. Yes, Colt claimed they made a pricing mistake, and TACOM wouldn't let them raise their prices. Colt's letters dated Jan 4 and Jan 28, 2008 alleged a "Mistake in Bid" on CLIN 0005 for M16A4 Rifle. The Government reviewed the letters and documentation provided by Colt, and determined that Colt was not entitled to a price increase for CLIN 0005.
As a result CLIN 0005 is hereby terminated by mutual agreement of the parties. This partial termination is at no cost to either the Government or Colt. |
|
dewatters,
Thanks again for the link to the SDI contracts. I knew you would come through. And I appreciate your concise summary, because I don't pretend to understand all the legalese in the documents. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
i love it!!! can you immagin how pissed colt koolaid drinkers are now that they are no long the only true milspec builder in town! Hey, it's a genuine asshat. We haven't had too many of these in a while! +1. It's been awhile.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i love it!!! can you immagin how pissed colt koolaid drinkers are now that they are no long the only true milspec builder in town! Hey, it's a genuine asshat. We haven't had too many of these in a while! +1. It's been awhile.... to not like colts they sure like to come to the colt forum |
|
Quoted:
I thought bushmaster had a contract for a few years. The US Army orders commercial rifles and carbines from Bushmaster on behalf of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) clients several times a year. One of the weirdest was Carbon-15 for Oman a few years back. But the difference between these FMS contracts and W52H09-08-D-0120 is that the commercial rifles don't have proper National Stock Numbers (NSN). The M16A3 rifles ordered in W52H0908-D-0120 had a NSN, and were to be delivered to the US Navy (NSWC-Crane). |
|
FWIW: Colt's FY08 contract awoke from its coma on Monday. TACOM placed a delivery order for 5,140 M16A4 in FMS configuration (carry handle and standard handguard) for $3,546,600.
|
|
Quoted:
FWIW: Colt's FY08 contract awoke from its coma on Monday. TACOM placed a delivery order for 5,140 M16A4 in FMS configuration (carry handle and standard handguard) for $3,546,600. $690 per rifle, that is interesting to know. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: i love it!!! can you immagin how pissed colt koolaid drinkers are now that they are no long the only true milspec builder in town! Hey, it's a genuine asshat. We haven't had too many of these in a while! It's like he was thinking out loud. Oh, and good for Sabre. |
|
Quoted:
FWIW: This was a troll thread and should have been trashed. +1. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.