U.S. Army places order for 24,000 M4 carbines with Remington

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by Bigcountry02, Apr 22, 2012.

  1. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    7,232
    37
    48
    This was posted on Air Force Times website.

    http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gear...s-order-for-24000-m4-carbines-with-remington/

    It was bound to happen. The U.S. Army has been buying M4 carbines exclusively from Colt since 2002 (though the first Colt M4 contract was awarded in 1996). But, as of 18:20 today, Remington Arms has been added to that dance card. The question is whether Colt retained a portion of the contract. It appears they haven’t, but it’s hard to tell from the published documents.

    According to the Department of the Army’s Chief of Legislative Liaison, the Army today executed a delivery order on an existing contract to buy 24,000 M4/M4A1s worth $16,163,252.07. The order comes as line 001 on an IDIQ contract for up to 120,000 carbines worth $83,924,089.00, though U.S. Army Contracting Command lists the “Max Potential Contract Value $180,000,000.00.” The rifles will be made at Remington’s factory in Ilion, N.Y., from the Colt technical data package and, by my math, will cost about $673 a copy. That’s a hell of a group buy price.

    This news is just hours old so Remington, and likely Colt, are still spinning up the PR machines. I spoke with two Remington Arms employees who confirmed the contract award but hadn’t been cleared to make a statement on behalf of the company.

    I haven’t heard from Colt, yet. But I expect them to be fairly quiet until the protest period has ended. I did speak with one industry executive Saturday morning that suggested Colt is already close to it’s production capacity. He mentioned the 2009 M240 and M249 contract awards as major contributing factors.

    Any of you that were about to buy milspec parts for your guns, now’s a good time. I’m sure Remington is about to go on an OEM parts buying binge. While they will likely forge their own upper receivers, lowers receivers, bolt, bolt carrier and barrels, they will have to subcontract for small parts such as ejectors, extractors, fire control groups, springs, pins just as Colt does.
     
  2. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    Jesus, 120,000 M-4's Are they planning on re-arming every soldier in the Army, National Guard and Reserves? 180 Billion? Have they not heard we are in a recession? Hopefully Remington shuts down the NY plant. NY does not deserve to get that much cash influx. Get a HUGE contract and move out of state. That ought to send Comrade Schumer into a tail spin!
     

  3. silverado113

    silverado113 New Member

    2,992
    0
    0
    There is 1.2 million soldiers, so they need a lot more than 120k.
     
  4. Vincine

    Vincine New Member

    3,495
    0
    0
    I know we had two wars going on. Is there a point where it's not worth the time and trouble to replace the worn parts on the used ones? If not, what happens to them?
     
  5. Durangokid

    Durangokid New Member

    1,799
    0
    0
    Well Obama and Holder are going to sell direct to the Mexican Cartels and cut out all those middle men.:(
     
  6. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    7,232
    37
    48
    Some old parts get DRMO'ed (Defense Reutilization and Management Office) and other to depot for refreshing and back into inventory.

    http://www.govliquidation.com/index.html
     
  7. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    The best info I can find is 507,000 US Army. 1.5 Mil total armed forces.
     
  8. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    180 Million not billion. That's also a potential max not a required amount, this is no different than DHS buying ammo in bulk.

    I am curious if parts will truly be interchangeable between the colt and remington versions.
     
  9. nhsuper44

    nhsuper44 New Member

    179
    0
    0
    will they all have that Bushmaster roll mark since Remington sucked up Bm?:confused:
     
  10. HotFudge

    HotFudge New Member

    310
    0
    0
    I thought the Army was contracting FN to make most of their M4s nowadays. Didn't know Colt was still doing it.
     
  11. Mosin

    Mosin Well-Known Member

    7,368
    164
    63
    I agree with this so much, it brings a small tear to my eye.:D
     
  12. 7X57Mauser

    7X57Mauser New Member

    79
    0
    0
    Trying to keep track of who is making what anymore is too confusing. Frankly I would prefer something that is built exactly the same but doesn't have the $500 horse logo on the side of the mag well.
     
  13. colmustard

    colmustard New Member

    1,237
    0
    0
    I take anything from the Army or AirForce times with a grain if salt. They have been wrong so many times. But if its true, I think it is not a good choice. Reason being Colt is quality. I carried a colt m4 while in and never had a issue or malfuction. I love remmington, but it seems latley their quality control has been suspect. So why choose them? oh ya because its cheaper! I understand buying from the lowest bidder, but with firearms and boots I buy quality.

    Just hope they dont swith to the wonderfull bushmaster ACR.
     
  14. Buckethead47

    Buckethead47 New Member

    519
    0
    0
    remington made/makes rifles for snipers for a while they were rem 700's (a rifle that has been under scrutiny) also with the thest they have to put those guns threw, it has to be a reliable gun.
     
  15. colmustard

    colmustard New Member

    1,237
    0
    0
    Your right about the 700 being used. It is called the m24 in the service, but it is basicly a rem. 700 in 308 win. But the 700 is a reliable weapon that has been built by rem. for a long time, just like the 870. I would still go buy a new 870, but I would not go buy a new rem. AR-15....wait I dont need to because I bought a colt. Sure colt is a money for a name, but also its for quality.
     
  16. Buckethead47

    Buckethead47 New Member

    519
    0
    0
    like i said the army wouldn't have bought them if they were not reliable.
     
  17. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    12
    38
    not sure thats true. after all they replaced the 1911 with a shoddy 92fs...
     
  18. Buckethead47

    Buckethead47 New Member

    519
    0
    0
    It still would have had to pass the test right? So it still would have to have some decent reliability. Or is my thought process wrong?
     
  19. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    Your logic is sound but sometimes in practice it doesn't work out that way. I don't think that M4's will be a problem because its not new technology or manufacturing processes.
     
  20. 7X57Mauser

    7X57Mauser New Member

    79
    0
    0
    Colt was sliding quietly into its coffin when they stumbled onto the M4 contract. They had produced M16s, and M16A1s and CAR-15s (aka the XM-177 Carbine) but lost out when the A2 contract came up....guess why? QUALITY CONTROL. Had it not been for shoddy Colt quality over the years, you wouldn't see the small pin/large pin rubbish when you look at trigger and lower receiver parts. Colt had a reputation for HORRENDOUS quality for years. They may have shaped up for the M4 contract, by tossing out fancy QC tests like MPI, etc. But fancy tests don't make up for turning out poor quality products for 30 years plus.

    As for Remington making an AR....well its likely going to be made by DPMS or Bushmaster anyway as they are all part of Freedom Group. Just so you don't get confused, Bushmaster was making M16A2s when you were still playing Army in the back yard. DPMS has been producing parts for ARs for years. Pay more for a horse, I have less in my complete carbine than a stripped Colt.