OTTO

Colt, Daniel Defense, FN & Remington Selected by DoD to Compete to Produce Carbines for Foreign Military Sales

DoD Announces:

Colt’s Manufacturing, West Hartford, Connecticut (W15QKN-18-D-0105); Daniel Defense,* Black Creek, Georgia (W15QKN-18-D-0106); FN America, Columbia, South Carolina (W15QKN-18-D-0107); and Remington Arms Co., Ilion, New York (W15QKN-18-D-0108), will compete for each order of the $28,482,840 firm-fixed-price contract to fabricate, locate, procure, or otherwise provide 5.56MM North Atlantic Treaty Organization commercial off-the-shelf  carbines. Four bids were solicited with four bids received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of July 13, 2019. U.S. Army Contracting Command, New Jersey, is the contracting activity.

Tags: , , ,

19 Responses to “Colt, Daniel Defense, FN & Remington Selected by DoD to Compete to Produce Carbines for Foreign Military Sales”

  1. Ryan Snow says:

    The FN plant in Columbia is strictly military, producing the m249, m4 , and other variants limited to the US Army. My question is ,will they produce the M4 for export under colts TDP?

    • SSD says:

      Why wouldn’t they?

      • Ryan Snow says:

        Because only Colt and The US Army are able to use that TDP. There is a reason FNH USA have 2 plants building AR15s. One in Fredericksburg, VA and one in Columbia NC. There technical data packages are totally different. Unfortunately civilians and LE have only access to the crappy ones. Your better off buying a DD, BCM, or Colt

        • Iceman says:

          Interesting bit of info there ryan. So what you are saying is that FN- in the gun biz for 130 years- Makes great guns because they have access to the tdp, but that all the other stuff not built to that tdp is garbage.

          • Vic says:

            Interesting bit of info indeed. It’s kinda like SiG, which has been in the gun biz for 150 years and after moving to the US starts cutting corners and making poor guns (at least for the civilian and LE market, militaries of the world seem to get different QC treatment).

          • Ryan Snow says:

            For a military perspective yes. Bushmaster has been doing export sales since the late 90’s, and eventually they get replaced by Colt M4s. It’s all in the Original TDP

            If FN wanted to make a great $2500 AR they would, but they are just building basic ar15s for civvis. Why ? The same reason a prom queen decides to date the ugly fat dude in high school. Just because she could

          • Ryan Snow says:

            FN only cares about the M249, and 240. Those have been paying their bills for half a century

            • SSD says:

              We currently live in a world where M4s are manufactured by FN and M240s are made by Colt.

        • SSD says:

          There’s so much wrong here.

          First off, FN doesn’t build anything in Fredericksburg. Second, they do manufacture in Columbia, SOUTH Carolina.
          Third, there are multiple Stoner pattern ARs on the market which are far superior to TDP weapons.

          • Iceman says:

            Thank you SSD. Precisely my point. The OP assumes that the tdp guns- developed many many years ago must be superior to anything being put out by anyone else.

            Furthermore- if SIG and others are cutting so many corners how come they keep winning contracts.

            The TDP M4 is far less superior to what is available on the commercial market folks.

            • Ryan Snow says:

              Sig are winning contracts because they are low balling the competition . They are selling each xm17 at approximately $150. UK met police keep sending back their MCX’s because it fails even the basic hurdles. They will eventually be all replaced by 10” 516’s free of charge. Neither LMT or H&K were willing to sell their products for such a low price.

              M4 TDP is like McD’s Chicken Nuggets, there have been many copys throughout the years but everyone keeps coming back to the original.

              • SSD says:

                At this point, the TDP holds the M4 back. Plenty of people, including SOCOM, are using weapons built outside of the TDP.

                • Stickman says:

                  SSD- I don’t think most people even understand what they are talking about when they mention the TDP, or even worse use the term “MILSPEC”.

                  Insert random “madness” meme….

                  • Ryan Snow says:

                    Says the guy that spends his time taking pictures and posting them on Instagram . Pffff gimme a break

  2. In-the-Know says:

    Silly Rabbits, No TDP is required for this contract. This is for off-the-shelf-carbines that have to fit a particular generic configuration to ensure training on one configuration will be applicable to all, and they have to indicate any differences that would prevent parts sustainment from the standard M4/M4A1 parts supply. If it looks, functions, and acts like an M4; can freely swap parts with one; and mount a grenade launcher then it could be competitive. This procurement is coming from the Army’s non-standard weapon program office, who are obviously more concerned about a quality output than stressing over the production process. Besides, the M4 TDP has some peculiarities that are inefficient from an efficient production and corrosion susceptibility standpoint anyway. The Gov’t isn’t losing ANYTHING except cost by going to an M4 clone in this circumstance. We should applaud the program office for conserving taxpayer money and allowing someone else besides Colt and FN (a foreign manufacturer despite their US-based facility) to make guns for our friends and allies.