BREAKING: Remington Sues Gov’t, Colt, FN Over Carbine Contract

m4a1 carbine

The $212 million contract that Colt and FN won for M4A1 Carbines is not going through uncontested. Remington Arms Co. has named the two companies, along with the Federal Government in a sealed lawsuit, reports Guns.com:

Remington Arms named the federal government, FN America and Colt Defense in a lawsuit over a contract to provide weapons to the U.S. Army.

Attorneys with Remington filed the complaint in federal claims court on Nov. 24 and requested it and other court documents be sealed throughout the litigation, which the court agreed to.

In the motion to seal the documents, Remington said it wanted to protect proprietary information listed in proposals sent to the U.S. Army’s contracting office.

Although details are sealed, the motion lists a solicitation number to a October 2014 notice by the Army for a contract to produce 292,000 M4 carbines. In September, the Army awarded the contract, valued at $212 million, to both FN and Colt.

The court issued a protective order on Dec. 1 that details rules for the case proceedings and protects competition-sensitive information, to which all parties agreed compliance. Also, the court set deadlines for hearings. Defendants have until Jan. 25 to submit answers to the complaint, and oral arguments are scheduled for Feb. 26.

Fabrique Nationale and Colt Defense, LLC, received a joint firm-fixed-price multi-year contract in late September for M4A1 Carbines, worth $212 million with an estimated completion date of September 24, 2020. Remington Arms, wracked by the failure and subsequent recall of the new model Remington 51 handgun, the Remington 887 recall, the Remington 700 scandal (resulting in the modification of potentially millions of Model 700 rifles, but which Remington insists was not a recall), the Daniel Defense lawsuit, and Remington parent company Cerberus’ attempts to find a buyer for the company, have resulted in the company receiving a downgraded rating from Moody Investor Services. Remington Arms is surely desperate for a contract to boost both its rating and recover from costly scandals and recalls.

Having said that, contesting contract awards via lawsuit is nothing new for Colt Defense, either. In 2012, Remington Arms Co. won a contract for M4 Carbines, which Colt protested, resulting in the 2013 FN M4 Carbine contract. In this case, it may be “turnabout is fair play” for Colt to have their contract contested in court this way.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • TheSmellofNapalm

    I think it’s about time that they simply burned to the ground. Too many shotty products, failed releases and overall disappointment. They’ll be fine, I’m sure they made tons of money providing Tier 1 groups with those select-fire ACRs we all drooled over for years 😛 I bet the original guns from the promotional pics are still in storage….

  • Yimmy

    Remington had fallen a long long way from where they once were. Cheap materials used, poor fit and finish, and yet the prices continue up. I’ve owned 3 different ones with two being made in the last ten years, never again.

    • imachinegunstuff

      Comparing my Rem 870 in 410 Manufactured in 1997 to the Rem 870 12 ga manufactured in 2014 it’s pretty apparent how downhill they’ve gone.

      • iksnilol

        It’s sad is all that can be said.

      • nova3930

        I’ve got a Remington 700 made in the early 70s. Comparing it to the one’s I see on the shelf today, I’d be embarrassed if I was connected with Remington in any way….

    • BrandonAKsALot

      They didn’t have that far to fall. Really, they had a short fall and have been digging a very deep grave.

    • FarmerB

      I’ve got a safe full of Remington rifles/shotguns and a cupboard full of parts/options for them. But I’ve probably bought my last Remington.

    • Gregory

      I chose an Ithaca 37 over the 870. It costs more but is well worth the money.

      • iksnilol

        Only con I can see with the Ithaca is that you can’t change barrels on it.

  • BattleshipGrey

    The new “American Dream”, sue anybody and everybody when something doesn’t go your way. A land where beer prices at the National-Pass-Time cost thrice what they’re worth and the apple pie comes frozen instead of mom’s rarely used oven. “Bring me your whiny and entitled.”

    • Frank

      SUE EVERYBODY, PUNITIVE DAMAGES

  • Major Tom

    So how about we just forget this business of using the M4A1 and just make a new rifle? Start from scratch using lessons learned from the past 50-60 years?

    • BattleshipGrey

      Looks good on paper, but look at the SA80 and all the troubles it gave the British for years. Or the recently vindicated G36 after the large boondoggle. Even the Massada/ACR program couldn’t go as planned.

      Historically the government seems to have a hard time learning military lessons. Not to mention that for the moment, we can’t really afford a whole new platform. Supposedly we’re almost out of bombs too.

      • Precious Roy

        Don’t forget we’re relying on B52s for another 25 or so years. There is talk of deploying them in Syria. Rifles, fighters (some not all), bombers, APCs, tanks – it aint the military industrial complex if it aint robbin Uncle Sam blind

        • TJbrena

          That’s because the B-52 is perfectly fine as a bomb and missile truck. Whether you need enough ordnance to level a neighborhood or have to deliver a cowboy riding a nuke, the BUFF has you covered.

          Remember when China first declared that ADIZ near the Senkaku Islands? B-52s were the first to penetrate it, and they didn’t go very far in, because they didn’t need to. If needed, they had enough ALCMs with enough range to give China a real bad day.

          Something being older or newer doesn’t make it better or worse, so long as its strengths and weaknesses are kept in mind. Planes, AFVs, guns, cars, etc.

          • Jwedel1231

            Couldn’t agree more, though I don’t have the memory you do. Now for making a new gun with the 50-60 years of experience under our belts… that basically means we would make a 16″ AR with a suppressor, 70 grain ammo and FDE. That configuration will do everything anyone needs it to, and can be quickly refitted to do the remaining 1% that special snowflakes need it to.

          • Precious Roy

            The B52 remark was a reply to the point about not being able to foot the bill for a new platform after sinking billions and decades into newer projects that ultimately are obsolete before full implementation or fall victim to new less friendly administrations.
            Thank God we have the B52 to fall back on. We aren’t using it because it was the plan all along to use it for 80 or a 100 years. Luckily for us that old would-be retiree the B52 is a cruise missile’s favorite recreational vehicle. If not for it they’d have probably had to stick it out with the B2 or use the B1s as a ALCM platform as well at a much higher cost and none of the original designed improvements.
            It’s an ever changing world so you have to expect some re-tasking of resources but the numbers of totally fubar major defense projects is staggering. The fact there is virtually zero accountability for it is scary. We bounce from one corrupted major platform to another and each drains funds from the next and we are always waiting 15-20 years for the new thing that will fix the current issues and it never gets here. Sooner or later turning those old crusty spoons into sporks will fail. Our tech & economic edge has made it easy to find workable solutions and we have only had to deal with a few potent enemies. That economic advantage is dwindling.
            This is all a bit of fun considering what will also be flying through the air if we are launching ALCMs at China or Russia.
            Just my sleep deprived view anyway.

          • Joshua

            It’s kind of like saying we need to replace the M2A1….we really don’t, as the product improved ma duece is an exceptional weapon.

            Just because it’s a B-52 doesn’t mean it hasn’t seen upgrades and modernizations.

          • Precious Roy

            I know B-52s aren’t using the same as they were in 1965. I’m not trashing B-52s either. I also don’t know how many are newer built with turbojets and how many are actually 60yrs old with turboprops and whatever else so valid point. It may be they just have been perfecting what the AIr Force really wanted under the name and general look of the Stratofortress. But we do know they have tried to retire it numerous times with the B1, B70 and B2.
            Just goes further to make my point about wasting billions on other replacements over the past 40 years. The unit price for the upgraded units for 1998 is crazy compared to B2s. $53 million for a B-52H vs $735 million for a B2. And one of those can’t fly in the rain.

    • CommonSense23

      Everybody who has tried that has failed so far. At this point, you are at diminishing returns, and the military has better thing to worry about.

      • Major Tom

        Like what? Wasting more money on the boondoggle that is the F-35?

        • Kivaari

          Like all the recently built HK rifles. I’d like to see the rifles that work better than the M4. To me that means none of the bull pups. Deawoo, AUG, UK anything and Berettas?

          • CommonSense23

            HK416s do not out perform M4A1s.

          • Kivaari

            I view the 416 as just one more AR15, with a high price, but a good finish.

    • kregano

      They’re not going to do it until the LSAT program is done.

      • BrandonAKsALot

        That won’t happen. They’ll spend millions, get it to the point where something viable could come from it, and cancel it.

        By the time caseless ammo actually becomes usable, it’ll be obsolete and rail gun-like tech will be able to take it’s place. I feel that’s the most likely next step. No case, no propellant, no primers. Now batteries just need a big leap in tech for it to happen.

        • LSAT is mostly focused on plastic-cased ammo…

          • Major Tom

            And last I was aware, it’s all but ready for LRIP evaluation and deployment. At least the LMG is.

          • Joshua

            I believe it’s sole focus is a LMG ATM. Could be wrong, but I don’t see what it offers for a Carbine.

            A 10lb lmg is amazing, but to make it work in Carbine format it would have to be basically the same size as the LMG.

            It cannot extract round so it needs a rotating chamber and a push through feed design which..and this is just my opinion…doesn’t seem liek it would work ideall for a Carbine, especially with modern techniques used for recoil control used and taught now days.

          • iksnilol

            10 lb lmg in 5.56 exists already.

            It’s called the Stoner LMG. KAC makes it IIRC.

          • Joshua

            True, I’ve never actually seen one outside of demos and such.

            They’re pretty much vaporware.

          • iksnilol

            The Danish Navy uses them… and allegedly PMCs use them as well.

            They’re pretty cool, I’d love one with a shorter barrel in 7.62×39.

          • Joshua

            Interesting. Didn’t know it was in use. It is a fascinating LMG design.

          • iksnilol

            It really is, like a belt fed Ultimax.

            Kinda sad that only the Danish Navy uses it. I think it makes the M249 SAW pointless. A Stoner LMG with 200 rounds is still lighter than an empty M249 Para (the supes lightweight lightweight one).

          • Joshua

            I would love to see it being fielded. Maybe even push it up to .308 to replace the M240

          • iksnilol

            Even if it weighed twice as much in 308 it’d still be significantly lighter than the M240. It really is a beautiful piece of machinery.

            Also, since it fires more slowly I believe you’d make your ammo last longer.

    • What problem would that solve, exactly?

      • Major Tom

        Well the simplest solution would it be that it wipes the slate clean. It would eliminate the reputation of choosing a weapon that has a reputation for being unreliable, maintenance intensive, finicky, and sensitive to unsanitized environments without excessive maintenance and lube. That reputation deserved or not, rightfully there or not would be eliminated with a new rifle design even if the new rifle copied or inherited like 80% of the features of the AR family.

        The second benefit be you have a weapon built for 21st century standards from the ground up instead of a constantly tacked on and prettied up piece of kit that is pretty much a 1950s technology.

        A third benefit is the new rifle design could standardize the entire US military and clean up all those limited edition “operator” weapons that are part of SOCOM and other outfits among other things. At present inventory there are no less than 3 versions of the M16 in use (A2, A3 and A4), two of the M4 (not counting the CQBR), the HK416 in limited and small quantities, and the FN SCAR family. A new platform wiping the slate clean could remove all of those and replace it with one uniform system. Think of the savings you’d get in procurement for parts, magazines and maintenance!

        And lastly, it would torture the souls of all those mall ninjas and range operators.

        • ARCNA442

          So, we should replace our entire small arms inventory because some people think that they are unreliable even though they aren’t, with something that is almost identical except with a different name. And the only real benefit is to have minor saving and the small number of parts that all the current AR variants don’t already have in common?

          Why not just just rename all the M16’s, M4’s, M27’s, and Mk18’s the M100A whatever or something and paint them FDE so they look different? It would have the same effect as your plan and be far cheaper.

        • Sooooo…

          1. Some people think the AR-15 is bad, so we should replace it.

          2. We should replace our current design that’s an adapted 1950s design with a new design that’s an adapted 1950s design, despite the fact that the former has proven exceptionally adaptable.

          3. We should help standardize Army inventory by introducing a new type of gun, even though the Army and Marine Corps together have embarked on efforts to standardize on the M4.

          Suffice it to say, I don’t get it.

      • NewMan

        How about a more reliable and cleaner operating system that also works well with suppressor, getting rid of the buffer tube which allow for a more modular stock, harder hitting round etc..

        • Pretty much all those objections were popularized by gun companies trying to sell alternatives in a saturated market.

          More reliable? There are basically no more reliable operating mechanisms than DI (though there are some that are just as reliable). System reliability has more to do with how gas flow is balanced and where it’s tapped, than what it impinges on.

          Cleaner? Sure, but you don’t hear anybody complaining about roller retarded blowback HKs. Some gun companies would love for people to believe that their oprod rifles are perfectly clean when shooting, but the reality is that most of the gas residue comes out of the big hole below the gas port, i.e. the chamber. Now, this is dependent on a lot of things, for example when your rifle is unlocking, how much back pressure is still present in the case after unlocking, etc. I would cite the FN SCAR as a rifle that probably runs pretty clean, because it’s got a lot of underlug and unlocks pretty late, but the point here is that having an operating rod doesn’t necessarily make the rifle run totally clean. I’ve owned enough AKs and vz. 58s in my time to know that’s simply not true.

          Getting rid of the buffer tube would be nice, but it’s not something to complain about, especially since the AR-15’s arrangement with the buffer tube is a considerable boon to its durability and light weight.

          Harder hitting round? Done, they called them Mk. 318 and M855A1.

          • NewMan

            what you said about the reliability of the DI doesn’t add up, considering the HK 416 system proven to be superior to the M4 in term of reliability.

            just look up the history of the 416 development.. HK didn’t make it out of nowhere, they designed the 416 as a response to a request by the SOF who wants a much more reliable system that also works well with short barrel and suppressor.

          • You know that the M4/A1 has a highly modular operating system, right? That means that you can replace components like the buffer, buffer spring, extractor spring, ejector spring, adjust the gas port diameter (by swapping the barrel), etc.

            So you are saying the HK 416 is more reliable than the M4 Carbine circa 2002 when the solicitation was released. That might be true (more on that later), but it has very little to do with the current M4A1 and Mk. 18, both of which have reaped the tremendous benefits of 13 straight years of constant improvements to their operating system.

            Before you bring it up, here’s my article on why the 2007 dust tests are meaningless.

            So let’s assume for a moment that Rifle C in the recent IC competition was the HK 416. I think that’s likely (it was either the 416 or the SCAR). Rifle C had a superior malfunction rate in Class I and II malfunctions, these are malfunctions that can be corrected by the user in the field. However, in Class III malfunctions, which require an armorer’s attention to fix, the M4 performed 50% better than Rifle C. That is exactly the result one would expect from two rifles that were mechanically identical, but where one was overgassed and oversprung, therefore having more motive power to overcome difficulties during normal operation, but having a much higher parts breakage rate as a result. The Army surely knew this, and – especially if Rifle C was indeed the 416 – probably decided that if they wanted a rifle that was overgassed and oversprung, they could modify the M4 to that configuration.

            It’s further worth noting that, so far as I know, the M4 Carbines used in the IC tests were not S-1-A M4A1 Carbines, but S-1-3 M4 Carbines. This is very important, as none of the other test rifles used the same 3 round burst mechanism that has proven so troublesome on the M4. This mechanism is a needless complication on the M4, and is very prone to failures, which are recorded as Class I and II malfunctions in US Army testing. This means that it’s very likely that the M4 performed worse in this regard than Rifle C simply because of its fire control group, which has since been eliminated from the design in the new M4A1 configuration (which has a S-1-A FCG). It’s very probable that Army evaluators, able to take a closer look at the data than either you or I, noted that a large number of the Class I and II malfunctions on the M4 Carbine were the result of the 3 round burst mechanism, and this led directly to the Army-wide M4A1 retrofit program.

          • NewMan

            hk 416 is also high modular and has a much more cleaner, reliable system that run much better with suppressor.

            it doesn’t matter what short of improvement it has, the M4 still using the same old DI system that crap right where it eat. but if you want to talk about improvement, you’re forgetting the HK 416A5

            that article only contain a link to another blog from someone who just pissed that the M4 lost… and not official testing data,,,

            the fact of the matter is that many SOFs are using the 416, including the Marine who has nothing but positive to say about the M27 and said that it is far more reliable than any M4 they have used…

            I respect the legacy AR for what they are, but they are far away from being the best with other rifles out there out-perform it in term of reliability. the main reason why it is so widely use is likely due to politics & price, and not performance….

    • BrandonAKsALot

      Like it or not, the AR isn’t going away anytime soon. Technology is incremental and to scrap everything and start again is not economical, feasible, or even remotely smart. Really there’s not anything wrong with AR besides the crappy charging handle and I personally hate the stocks/buffer tube.

      • Major Tom

        I never liked the DI gas system on non-piston variants. Makes a mess of things and greatly reduces the lifespan and reliability of the weapon.

        And what’s that about start again not being any of that? From 1900 to 1975 the US Army went through no less than 5 different rifles and 4 different calibers of ammo. It went from the Krag-Jorgensen to the 1903 Springfield to the M1 Garand to the M14 to the M16. We went from the M1 Garand through the M14 to the M16 in a span of maybe 10 years with parts of that 10 year span having all three running concurrently.

        • Joshua

          Reduces life span and reliability? Seriously?

          Let me guess you read that on the internet? Because trials have shown different.

          • Major Tom

            Says who? The info I get for that is from former armorers (US Marine Corps specifically) who would fix the rifle you effed up. The DI gas system corrodes parts, weakens the temper of the metal in the receiver and generally is not a good thing to have. “It sh*ts where it eats” is the phrase.

          • Well, I dunno how to say this gently, but they’re wrong. Anyone who’s been hard on an AR before can tell you that.

          • Joshua

            Corodes and weakens the metal?

            The hottest part of the BCG is the gas key and it gets to a piping 180°f.

            If that low of a temp is weakening the “temper” then those are some crap parts.

    • Joshua

      Why, the M4A1 so far has surpassed practically every rifle it has competed against in numerous trials.

      At most a couple of rifles may offer better barrels, but none have actually proven to be better. So far the only thing we have actually conclusively proven is that some guns can surpass the M4A1 in time between stoppages when using better magazines than GI Mags, however when we test the M4A1 with those mags the M4A1 once again outperforms those rifles.

      • NewMan

        Even the HK 416? I highly doubt it…

        Many top tier SOFs are using the 416 instead of the M4, and for a good reason.

        • Joshua

          Yes even the HK416. Many top tier SOFs are also using the M4A1. The LMT AR(a mid length system) has also been sweeping up EU contracts when they are allowed to submit.

          I’ll put it like 10th SFG did, the M4A1 is mechanically more reliable than the HK416. This was also found in numerous other groups and it is why only 2 units in the US use the HK416. Those two units also happen to be the first 2 adopters of it back in 2004.(M27 is a separate matter with different requirements and the guns it won against where vastly different in design and the fact that it was an attempt to get a new gun issued that went sideways and the M27 is now being pushed into the DMR role).

          Hell even the “Leaked” results of the Armys most recent ICC demonstrated this with the M4A1 performing best in Type III stoppages(these being things that must be fixed by an armorer), and coming in second with Type I and II stoppages(which the majority were magazine related, as the Army has flat out said that their new GI mags mimicking Pmag feed angles increase feed reliability by 350%-400%).

          The HK416 is a good gun, don’t get me wrong. I also think it offers EU countries things that the base line M4A1 doesn’t like the rail system(something we can source off the market and are doing so) and a superior barrel to the M4A1 barrel.

          • CommonSense23

            I have seen more malfunctions in one day with 416s then I have ever seen with our MK18s. The majority of the guys I know who have a 416 issued want their 18s back.

          • NewMan

            Sorry but I’m not buying that – unless you have a reputable source to back that up? Can you link me to a test where the M4 out performed the 416?

            The 416 operating system has proven to be far cleaner, work far better with suppressor use, has OTB capability etc..etc… If the M4A1 is mechanically “more reliable” then the Marine sure hell wouldn’t have adopted the M27 (for sustain full auto role) and would’ve just gone with a heavy barrel M4A1 instead, but that clearly is not the case since the 416 system is proven to be far more reliable.

            Regarding the dust test, last time I check all rifles there were tested with USGI mag…

          • Joshua

            That’s fine. Join the military and get into SOCOM and you can get the information you seek.

            I didn’t mention a dust test just FYI. Not sure we’re you got that.

          • NewMan

            I pointed out the dust test because in that test the all rifles (with the exception of the XM8) were using USGI mag and they completely stomped the M4, which contrary to what you were saying that the M4 beat those rifle when using better mags (something that you still haven’t prove).

            What you said about the M27 is also contrary to what the Marine reported – in which they said the M27 is a cleaner and more reliable weapon than the M4 with much fewer jam.

            The fact of the matter is that the 416 has already proven itself to be superior to the legacy M4 – having much cleaner operating system, works better with shorter barrel, function much better with suppressor, has OTB capability, CHF barrel etc…

          • Joshua

            Well now I know you get your information offline.

            Every time this discussion comes up, the ones who only have stuff they read online always bring up the Hk416 killed Osama.

            Well duh, DEVGRU adopted it instead of waiting for CRANE to mature the Mk18.

            Fact is every other SEAL team uses the Mk18.

            But your internet search ability trumps my actual knowledge from my career.

    • Ben

      Given that various nations are transferring their rifles to AR based rifles (Kiwis as their service rifle, Brits for their DMR), I think the lesson learnt is that the AR is the way to go for the standard rifle/carbine.

      • Major Tom

        Really now? The Israelis have abandoned the AR platform in favor of the Tavor TAR-21/MTAR-21 bullpup series. The Finns went to FN SCAR derivatives over AR clones for their SF outfits.

        • CommonSense23

          Last time I worked with Israeli SOF they all rocked ARs

          • NewMan

            Maybe those SOFs didn’t select the M4 because it’s best, but more because it’s the most widely use and even that doesn’t mean that it’s the best, either.

          • CommonSense23

            They had the ability use either ARs, AKs, or Tavors. They chose ARs for a reason.

        • Joshua

          The Tavor was more about not having to rely on a foreign nation to supply your general issue rifle in a time when said nation was struggle to keep up with their own domestic demand during the GWOT.

          The Tavor is a decent rifle, but make no mistake, getting rid of relying on us to supply them with parts and rifles played a huge role in providing a domestically developed rifle.

          See we don’t have this issue, because when we adopt a design the company has to open a factory and produce the rifles on US soil.

          Israel solely relied on Colt producing and shipping them what they needed, much faster to adopt a domestic design if a foreign one is made in a seperate country half the world over.

        • Ben

          Yes, really.

          The Israelis change to the TAVOR from the AR was due to two things; 1 – the AR stock was donated by the US, dated back to the Vietnam era, and well past the end of it’s service life. 2 – Israel is extremely vociferous about having all their equipment designed and made in Israel (Comparable at least to Germany or France); so even if buying ARs was indisputably the best option they still wouldn’t have adopted it.

          As far as the Finns go, this appears to be the exception that proves* the rule, and for this to be tested would require Russia to invade Finland which isn’t going to happen any time soon despite recent noises.

          It’s also worth mentioning that the AR is an iconic and highly politicized weapon. Arming your troops with it shows a clear allegiance to US, and by extension approval/complicity with the actions she takes (or more notably has taken). The same can be said for the AK and Russia.

          The choices of the Israelis and Finns could be viewed in this context. The Israeli’s have been distancing themselves for some time from the US. They are also obliged to spend a proportion of the Financial Aid provided by the US on American defense products. Buying ARs could have been construed as a sign of obedience to the US, internally and externally of Israel, which wouldn’t go down well for a country constantly trying to assert its own identity.

          The Finns are caught between a rock and a hard place by being sat in between NATO and Russia influence (and have a history of never fully capitulating to the USSR following the Winter War, although they were under the USSR’s thumb). Purchasing the SCAR is a happy medium that shows three things (bearing mind they only bought 500 of them):
          1 – Allegiance to NATO (which they are exploring joining, and the EU which they are a member of) by buying a weapon from a NATO country, but. . .
          3 – Separation from the US by not buying their equipment (which wouldn’t go down well due to the association with the War in Iraq).
          2 – Clear separation from Russia, but their standard rifle is a redesign of the AK (which is another display of power balancing between Finnish interests and Russia exerting its influence).

          Ultimately, and sadly, there is far more that goes into weapons procurement than simply picking which piece of equipment is objectively best.

          *”Proves” in the context of this phrase means “to test”, it doesn’t “shows to be true”.

          • iksnilol

            Finnland doesn’t use the AK due to any allegiance to Russia, they simply use it because it works for them… and due to easier resupply if they fight Russia (which is most likely enemy for them).

            I guess they didn’t bother moving to 5.56 because the 7.62×39 is well suited for the terrain and climate in Scandinavia.

    • Kivaari

      Well, that 50-60 years old rifle has been shown to be a very good weapon. If a soldier is issued the latest M4A1 carbine, they should be quite happy. What other service rifle has been issued in the millions that can deliver the same performance level as an M4. No, it is not the AKM-pattern rifles, as none of them perform as well as late generation M16-based weapons.

  • jeff k

    212 million doesnt sound like that much for a govt contract imo. i always figured that military rifle contracts were in the 500+ million range.

    • The current contracts are more to sustain the existing production lines. It isn’t as though they are reequipping the entire US military.

      • Michael J Carter

        More to replace damaged or worn out guns.

        • That is definitely part of it. Allied governments will also be filling their own rifle requirements from the contract.

        • G0rdon_Fr33man

          Aren´t the lowers pretty hard to wear out?

          • Joshua

            Yes and the Air Forces GAU rifles prove this.

      • Joshua

        They kind of are reequipping the Army. The M4A1 has a number of differences over the current M4 as you know.

        • Oh yes, but don’t forget the massive rebuild effort to convert the legacy M4 into M4A1. Heck, even old M16A2 are being rebuilt and remarked as carbines.

  • It’s time to take Remington to a scenic overlook, tell it about the farm we’ll own someday, and put it down with a P08 Luger.

    • iksnilol

      What book is that from?

      I mean, for an American to use a Luger that’s got to be very specific.

      • Of Mice and Men

        • iksnilol

          Thanks, that’s another on my “read/watch when you got the time” list.

          • Michael J Carter

            You mean you didn’t read it in school like most of us? I know they took it out for the younger generations (as in my Nephs didn’t get to read it).

          • iksnilol

            I am not in the US, so it most likely wasn’t in my curriculum.

            Just like I presume that “Vildanden” isn’t in any curriculums in the US?

          • FarmerB

            Yeah, was lost on me as well.

          • Kivaari

            Even Mark Twain was censored in my 1950’s books. In the 60s we saw more classic books getting toned down, since people were being “oppressed”.

          • Cymond

            FWIW, it’s a pretty short book, like 120 pages and fits well in a typical pants pocket.

          • iksnilol

            Hmm, might take the 30-60 minutes off to read it then. Would be worth it. 😀

  • Carl Kahlson

    They presumably sealed the documents because the stenographer recorded the judge laughing his head off.

    “Remington?! Army?! HAH-ha,ha,pfft!!-AHAHAHA!!!”

  • Remington appears to be hedging their bets with the lawsuit in the US Court of Federal Claims. Remington had already filed a GAO protest back on October 9th. However, the GAO’s ruling isn’t scheduled until January 19, 2016.

  • Lance

    There always a loser who has to have a tantrum over there loss. Expect M-4 production to be tied up for a couple of years.

  • Joshua

    Screw Remington. The M4A1 is a huge upgrade over the base line M4 and this will only hold up getting them issued to soldiers.

  • zlittle

    The R51 should have been the first clue.

  • John

    Remington does not want a piece of whatever Colt is getting. Really. Colt is barely treading water right now.

    Remington needs to concentrate on their own pistol, and their own rifles, and improve the materials used in making those products.

  • Will

    I like Remington rifles and shotguns……if they were made before 1970.

  • Mike Dunger

    Hey, I’ll definitely give Colt/FN $726 for an M4. Where do I order?

  • uisconfruzed

    Good call Army, I don’t want ANYTHING that comes in that green box either.

  • flyr

    Sounds like Obama and Hillary sucking the last drops of blood out of the American firearms producers. Naturally Remington’s wall street sugar daddy has a direct line to Obama through the fundraisers ….