Bushmaster supplier of the M4 to the United States military?

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bushmaster supplier of the M4 to the United States military? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 12/13/2005 5:53:12 PM EDT

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.”

Did I miss something, I thought Colt was the only supplier?

Posted: 12/13/2005 6:35:11 PM EDT

[#1]

Bushmaster may have supplied a number of M4 type rifles to the military in the recent past - GW1, IIRC. It wasn't an official contract and Colt went home to mother, crying all the way - meaning they sued all of God's creation to preserve their last bastion of hope for survival, the lucrative US Military contract.

Or something like that.

Posted: 12/13/2005 6:35:34 PM EDT

[#2]

No, they dont.

Posted: 12/13/2005 7:37:32 PM EDT

[#3]

Apparently, Bushmaster sold 65 M4 carbines to the Army in 1990. Here's a link to the recent court case between Bushmaster and Colt Bushy vs Colt.
It is 76 pages long, go to page 12 for the relevant info. This is a redacted document, btw.

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:26:46 AM EDT

[#4]

As noted above, Bushmaster sold 65 M4 carbines to the Army in April 1990. These weapons were sent to the Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds and there is no evidence that any more were ever purchased or issued to troops in the field.

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:30:37 AM EDT

[#5]

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.”

Did I miss something, I thought Colt was the only supplier?

read the same article and wondered the same thing. New issue of "Combat Weapons" perhaps?

tagged for info.

edit: It was the latest issue of "Combat Weapons" ...thought it was SWAT magazine until I called home and asked the girlfriend to check the mag basket by the "throne".

the statement is made matter of factly and makes no mention of a "limited run" or anything else. Someone else may check the veracity of the statement.

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:36:23 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

No, they dont.

Yes they do

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:37:53 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Apparently, Bushmaster sold 65 M4 carbines to the Army in 1990. Here's a link to the recent court case between Bushmaster and Colt Bushy vs Colt.
It is 76 pages long, go to page 12 for the relevant info. This is a redacted document, btw.

Your link does not work.

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:39:18 AM EDT

[#8]

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:41:34 AM EDT

[#9]

They may have submited a sample batch. No contracts were ever made.

ETA I only assume this. yet I still state it as if I know what Im talking about. Because thats what we do here on the internet. Some times I state outlandish crazy things just to mess with everyone, and see the gulable people take it seriously. However this one is my true beleive.

Take this and everything you ever hear here with a grain of salt.

Posted: 12/14/2005 8:18:40 AM EDT

[#10]

And Elvis is alive

Posted: 12/14/2005 8:21:35 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:

No, they dont.

Yes they dodid

Fixed it for you buddy.

Posted: 12/14/2005 8:47:45 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
They may have submited a sample batch. No contracts were ever made.

"Batchmaster M4's"

Priceless

Posted: 12/14/2005 1:26:03 PM EDT

[#13]

Bushmaster did sell the 65 M4 carbines to the Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds in April 1990. They have a check from the Army dated June 27, 1990 as payment for the contract.

Besides that, the sale is now part of the legal record in Colt v. Bushmaster (which you can find here: www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/cohen/2005/dmc_09202005_2-04cv240_colt_v_bushmaster_affirmed_12062005.pdf on page 12). If you read the footnotes it discusses the use only at Aberdeen in there.

Colt is aware of this contract and acknowledged it existed though they qualified it (what they qualified it with was redacted though).

Posted: 12/14/2005 1:33:36 PM EDT

[#14]

Maybe the article you read was in Small Arms Review, and in that article it states Bushmaster supplies weapons to the military, like the gun on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I do not believe the article stated that it supplied M4s to the military.
Bushmaster makes a whole lot more than Colt is capable in the armament business.

Posted: 12/14/2005 1:44:52 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Maybe the article you read was in Small Arms Review, and in that article it states Bushmaster supplies weapons to the military, like the gun on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I do not believe the article stated that it supplied M4s to the military.
Bushmaster makes a whole lot more than Colt is capable in the armament business.

I spotted one obnoxious error in that article, but did not see the bit about the 25mm in there. Will check, but I doubt something that outrageous stuiped would have made it into SAR, but hey, been wrong before.

Posted: 12/14/2005 1:47:09 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Maybe the article you read was in Small Arms Review, and in that article it states Bushmaster supplies weapons to the military, like the gun on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I do not believe the article stated that it supplied M4s to the military.
Bushmaster makes a whole lot more than Colt is capable in the armament business.

Bushmaster (aka Quality Firearms Inc.) does NOT make the cannon on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. They just happen to share the same name. I would also disagree that Bushmaster Inc. is more capable than Colt when it comes to the armament business. They are growing and Colt isn't; but Bushmaster still has a long way to go to match Colt in resources.

Posted: 12/14/2005 1:47:50 PM EDT

[#17]

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.

Posted: 12/14/2005 1:53:58 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
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.

While the did sell some, they were not "made by Bushmaster", in that the lowers were Eagle Arms, never heard what uppers were on them.

Posted: 12/14/2005 1:55:45 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Maybe the article you read was in Small Arms Review, and in that article it states Bushmaster supplies weapons to the military, like the gun on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I do not believe the article stated that it supplied M4s to the military.
Bushmaster makes a whole lot more than Colt is capable in the armament business.

Boeing used to make the Bushmaster cannon. Someone else does now. Colt is the ONLY current M4 supplier.

Bushmaster doesnt even make nearly as many weapons as Colt. What are you talking about?

Posted: 12/14/2005 2:13:15 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

While the did sell some, they were not "made by Bushmaster", in that the lowers were Eagle Arms, never heard what uppers were on them.

Do you mean Bushmaster had nothing to do with producing them, or is it just a CMT/Colt type deal?

Posted: 12/14/2005 2:41:07 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Maybe the article you read was in Small Arms Review, and in that article it states Bushmaster supplies weapons to the military, like the gun on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I do not believe the article stated that it supplied M4s to the military.
Bushmaster makes a whole lot more than Colt is capable in the armament business.

Ca Ca be deep here.

Bushmaster also supplies the troops with their assault snakes for night and behind the lines assaults.

Posted: 12/14/2005 3:11:01 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe the article you read was in Small Arms Review, and in that article it states Bushmaster supplies weapons to the military, like the gun on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I do not believe the article stated that it supplied M4s to the military.
Bushmaster makes a whole lot more than Colt is capable in the armament business.

Boeing used to make the Bushmaster cannon. Someone else does now. Colt is the ONLY current M4 supplier.

Bushmaster doesnt even make nearly as many weapons as Colt. What are you talking about?

If you look at the sticky "batf stats ar manufacturer" bushmaster in fact does make more weapons than colt, now atleast they do...

Posted: 12/14/2005 3:16:41 PM EDT

[#23]

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 mark on the lowers was redacted from the legal documents. Is the above a guess on your part or do you have a source for it?

Quoted:
If you look at the sticky "batf stats ar manufacturer" bushmaster in fact does make more weapons than colt, now atleast they do...

The BATF stats only refer to weapons sold to the civilian market and don't include military contract weapons. Not sure if it includes exports either and Colt likely has large numbers in both categories.

Posted: 12/14/2005 3:36:37 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

The BATF stats only refer to weapons sold to the civilian market and don't include military contract weapons. Not sure if it includes exports either and Colt likely has large numbers in both categories.

Bushmaster exports as well. I have no idea who exports more.

Posted: 12/14/2005 3:42:13 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Yes they do

WRONG

Posted: 12/14/2005 3:46:30 PM EDT

[#26]

So what is this I am hearing about Colt trying to merge with Bushmaster??

Posted: 12/14/2005 3:47:53 PM EDT

[#27]

The lowers were purchased from Eagle Arms, and Bushmaster put something on top of them, then sold them to someone in the Government. So there you go, Bushmaster is now a US Govt. "M4" contractor.

Info came from Mark Westrom, who worked at US Army Ordnance, Rock Island Arsenal, and now owns Eagle Arms.

Posted: 12/14/2005 3:56:38 PM EDT

[#28]

who gives a rats ass if they did or didnt, bushmaster makes a fine rifle and Should be selling to the military. Colt fanatics think Colt is Gospel and they are not. Bushmaste makes a rifle as good if not better than Colt.

Posted: 12/14/2005 4:03:03 PM EDT

[#29]

And I am not the one that let the cat of the bag, crsbar mentioned it here first:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260152&page=9

Posted: 12/14/2005 4:23:21 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Ca Ca be deep here.

Bushmaster also supplies the troops with their assault snakes for night and behind the lines assaults.

And oddly enough the snakes they supply are rattlesnakes, rather than bushmasters.
Who'd a thunk.

Posted: 12/14/2005 5:55:54 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
As noted above, Bushmaster sold 65 M4 carbines to the Army in April 1990. These weapons were sent to the Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds and there is no evidence that any more were ever purchased or issued to troops in the field.

IIRC, the guys who were on Gen. Schwarzkopf's security detail were given Bushmaster M-4's.

Posted: 12/14/2005 6:06:41 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
who gives a rats ass if they did or didnt, bushmaster makes a fine rifle and Should be selling to the military. Colt fanatics think Colt is Gospel and they are not. Bushmaste makes a rifle as good if not better than Colt.

Uncle Sam isn't interested in reverse engineering. Thanks for playing.

Posted: 12/14/2005 6:11:37 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
who gives a rats ass if they did or didnt, bushmaster makes a fine rifle and Should be selling to the military. Colt fanatics think Colt is Gospel and they are not. Bushmaste makes a rifle as good if not better than Colt.

Bushmaster is not near the quality of Colt. I'm sorry, but that is a fact. Their stocks, fsb's and bolts are out of spec. So is their barrel. Will the difference matter to Uncle Elmo? Probably not so much. But Uncle Sam cares.

Posted: 12/14/2005 6:15:36 PM EDT

[#34]

There is one supplier of M4s, and it's not Bushmaster.

Sixty Five rifles does not a supplier make; it's barely a fart in the military's general direction.

Posted: 12/14/2005 6:25:03 PM EDT

[#35]

If any other maker gets a contract for the M4 it will probably be FN since they are the ones making the M16A4 (and the older A2's) already.

Posted: 12/14/2005 6:29:07 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
The lowers were purchased from Eagle Arms, and Bushmaster put something on top of them, then sold them to someone in the Government. So there you go, Bushmaster is now a US Govt. "M4" contractor.

Info came from Mark Westrom, who worked at US Army Ordnance, Rock Island Arsenal, and now owns ~~Eagle Arms~~ArmaLite.

Fixed it for you.

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:11:44 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The lowers were purchased from Eagle Arms, and Bushmaster put something on top of them, then sold them to someone in the Government. So there you go, Bushmaster is now a US Govt. "M4" contractor.

Info came from Mark Westrom, who worked at US Army Ordnance, Rock Island Arsenal, and now owns ~~Eagle Arms~~ArmaLite.

Fixed it for you.

Yes, Mark does own ArmaLite, but that is an also, as in he does own Eagle Arms.

Posted: 12/15/2005 8:12:54 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
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 mark on the lowers was redacted from the legal documents. Is the above a guess on your part or do you have a source for it?

I admit fault. A quick skim on page 25 must have confused me.

Still, Bushmaster started using the term "M4 Type" shortly after that contract, and that hints that Bushmaster knew the future designation. I doubt Bushmaster would have been supplied the term "M4" unless they were to mark the supplied products accordingly. That's just skepticism on my part though.

So....

No Bushmaster does not supply our militay with M4 carbines, but technically, they have before.

Posted: 12/15/2005 9:19:48 AM EDT

[#39]

Uncle Sam isn't interested in reverse engineering. Thanks for playing.

So, thats why FN makes every M16 variant BUT the M4? Thats why Stoner/Armalite (the original) doesnt make ALL of the M16 variants?

Please. Uncle Sam is interested in only two things; Low Bidder and manufacturing capability.

Posted: 12/15/2005 9:29:02 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
who gives a rats ass if they did or didnt, bushmaster makes a fine rifle and Should be selling to the military. Colt fanatics think Colt is Gospel and they are not. Bushmaste makes a rifle as good if not better than Colt.

IMHO

Posted: 12/15/2005 9:32:28 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
who gives a rats ass if they did or didnt, bushmaster makes a fine rifle and Should be selling to the military. Colt fanatics think Colt is Gospel and they are not. Bushmaste makes a rifle as good if not better than Colt.

+1

Posted: 12/15/2005 9:41:03 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Uncle Sam isn't interested in reverse engineering. Thanks for playing.

So, thats why FN makes every M16 variant BUT the M4? Thats why Stoner/Armalite (the original) doesnt make ALL of the M16 variants?

Please. Uncle Sam is interested in only two things; Low Bidder and manufacturing capability.

FN is in possession of the TDP for the M16 variants so naturally they will build 'em right. No reverse engineering there. Colt product improved the original Armalite design to make it what it is today. The M4 was designed by Colt on their dime with no funding from Uncle Sugar. Let's take a look at what's been successful and what hasn't shall we...

M4 = successful
M249 = successful
M240 = successful
ARM pistol = flop
M17 = flop
BAR10 = flop

Posted: 12/15/2005 9:44:43 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

So, thats why FN makes every M16 variant BUT the M4?

FN manufactures the M16A2/A4 according to Colt's specs. That is why FN can not sell to others, it is not their design.

Quoted:
Thats why Stoner/Armalite (the original) doesnt make ALL of the M16 variants?

ArmaLite of Hollywood, the division of Fairchild sold the AR-15 to Colt's. They thus lost rights to the design, the name, the patents, the gas system, etc. The AR-15 had to be redesigned, from the flash suppressor to the buttstock screw before it was accepted Standard A.

Quoted:
Please. Uncle Sam is interested in only two things; Low Bidder and manufacturing capability.

The US Government bought a license agreement from Colt's for the M16, and an addendum was added for the M4. So while they are interested in low bids, and manufacturing capability, they also have to be careful not to violate the license agreement with Colt's for their current service rifles/carbines.

Oh yes, and your welcome, no charge.

Posted: 12/15/2005 10:23:15 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe the article you read was in Small Arms Review, and in that article it states Bushmaster supplies weapons to the military, like the gun on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I do not believe the article stated that it supplied M4s to the military.
Bushmaster makes a whole lot more than Colt is capable in the armament business.

Bushmaster (aka Quality Firearms Inc.) does NOT make the cannon on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. They just happen to share the same name. I would also disagree that Bushmaster Inc. is more capable than Colt when it comes to the armament business. They are growing and Colt isn't; but Bushmaster still has a long way to go to match Colt in resources.

I stand corrected. That is what I love about ARFCOM, you can learn something new every day.

Posted: 12/15/2005 10:35:58 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
who gives a rats ass if they did or didnt, bushmaster makes a fine rifle and Should be selling to the military. Colt fanatics think Colt is Gospel and they are not. Bushmaste makes a rifle as good if not better than Colt.

Put down the crack pipe

Posted: 12/15/2005 12:43:13 PM EDT

[#46]

So, we all just believe what we want to believe here?

I mean, all the Colt-lovers have been screaming for "proof" of a .mil contract. Is a court document good enough? Not for some. OTOH, we are supposed to believe that Bushmaster couldn't even come up with 65 lowers (of it's own) to fill a small contract order? Where's the proof?

What difference does it make anyway? It's just about who's precious ox gets gored last.

It's a

rodeo.

Posted: 12/15/2005 1:08:56 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
So, we all just believe what we want to believe here?

I mean, all the Colt-lovers have been screaming for "proof" of a .mil contract. Is a court document good enough? Not for some. OTOH, we are supposed to believe that Bushmaster couldn't even come up with 65 lowers (of it's own) to fill a small contract order? Where's the proof?

What difference does it make anyway? It's just about who's precious ox gets gored last.

It's a rodeo.

Contract award dates, numbers delivered, who issued too is a hobby of mine. The Bushmaster "contract" is clouded in mystery because Bushmaster has refused to release any information other then their usual marketing hype. Their hype is frequently riddled with half truth's, false hoods, and flat out lies. I have had more trouble tracking down info on the Bushmaster "contract" then I did trying to figure out when Colt's received their order for Model 602 AR-15's.

If such things are of no interest to you, then why bother posting in a thread that deals with the subject? Am sure there is something you could do with your time that is of interest.

Posted: 12/16/2005 12:36:04 PM EDT

[#48]

Well, I never said anything about not being interested in the subject.

My point is pretty simple. I read a great deal of the court decision - including all the objections and counter-claims. The court, Bushmaster and Colt all seem to agree that this contract existed and that it was fulfilled. Given that, I was just curious as to why, given the evidence in front of us, some folks refuse to believe this happened. On what grounds do some not believe it?

I always find ox-goring and dead horse-beating interesting.