Spikes Tactical
- Thread starter MWL
- Start date
Not exactly. Nobody who knows the content is prohibited from using it, they are prohibited from using knowledge of the TDP to bid on government M4 and M16 contracts. Not the same thing
As I said, the TDP has been widely available in the industry since 1997 and continues to be more so even now. The US Gov't just gave away a whole bunch of copies this past November to help companies prepare bids to build M4 carbines
I'm not debating whether the price is a good deal. I don't agree that Spike's is top tier though.
Questar sells top tier AR's from LMT and Noveske. The also sell mid-tier guns like the Spikes and RRA offerings.
The sell bottom tier Vulcan/Hesse guns as well.
The have a little of everything for all types of customers with all types of expectations. That is why they are a successful retailer
I managed to get some limited internet access, so I found some of the stuff I was looking for:
From Colt:
http://www.colt.com/ColtMilitary/Products/ColtM4Carbine.aspx
Quote: "The Colt M4 is the ONLY 5.56mm carbine in the world today that is manufactured to meet or exceed the stringent performance specifications (MILSPEC) required for acceptance and use by the U.S. Armed Forces."
Also this:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Colt-M4-Data-Rights-The-Individual-Carbine-Competition-06942/
Quote: "Contrary to popular misconception, the US Department of Defense does not own the technical data package (TDP) for either the M4 carbine or its parent, the M16 rifle. In June/67, in its role as the DOD’s designated procurement agency, the US Army purchased a license from Colt for the TDP and the rights to produce the M16 family of weapons and its component parts.
Some wonder why Colt proprietary rights to the M16 TDP and M4 TDP are still given such reverence by the Army, long after most applicable patents had expired. For example, the Army paid royalties on second-sourced M16 rifles and parts until 1990. It is more glaring in the case of the M4 as very little of the M4’s original design was ever patented by Colt. The short answer is that the Army agreed to such terms in the original 1967 licensing agreement and its amendments, particularly the infamous “M4 Addendum” of 1997.
The origin of the “M4 Addendum” traces back to the improper release of the M4 TDP by the US Army’s Rock Island Arsenal to the US Navy’s NSWC-Crane in early 1996. NSWC-Crane had requested a copy of the M4A1 TDP to support the solicitation of accessories for the M4 SOPMOD kit. While soliciting an adaptor for training ammunition, NSWC-Crane provided the M4A1 TDP to 21 vendors in August/96. As one of the potential bidders, Colt was very much surprised to receive a copy of their own TDP drawings, and gave notice that the terms of the 1967 Licensing Agreement had breached. NSWC-Crane quickly attempted to recover all copies of the TDP and sent out non-disclosure agreements (NDA) to the other 20 vendors. All of the vendors except FN Manufacturing complied. FN Manufacturing officials had balked on one of the five terms of the NDA, refusing to state whether they had safeguarded the TDP while it was in their possession. Instead, they provided a letter asserting that they had not improperly used the data.
Around the time, the Army announced the procurement of 716 M4A1 and 9,785 M4 carbines. FN Manufacturing submitted an unsolicited bid, which was promptly rejected. However, the damage was done. Connecticut’s Congressional delegation became involved, demanding a DOD Inspector General audit of the Army and Navy’s actions in their handling of the M4 TDP. By the end of the year, Colt announced that the DOD’s failure to adequately to protect the proprietary data constituted a material breach of the 1967 Licensing Agreement. Thus, the licensing agreement would be terminated, and the DOD could no longer use the TDP in the second-source procurement of the M16/M4 or their parts. Colt also threatened a lawsuit, estimating damages from $43.5 – 70 million. In response, the Army claimed that the license could only be terminated if they had not made a best faith effort to correct the situation.
Settlement negotiations between Colt and the Army dragged on through 1997. In December 1997, an agreement was reached. Colt would waive its damage claims and leave the previous terms of the 1967 licensing agreement intact with regards to the M16 TDP. In return, the Army agreed to not use the M4 TDP for competitive procurement for a set period of time, ensuring Colt’s sole-source status. The resulting agreement was dubbed the “M4 Addendum”.
However, FN Manufacturing still hoped to gain a piece of M4 procurement, and found their chance in May/98. The Army announced that it was awarding Colt a $8,296,925 contract for 15,925 M4/M4A1 Carbines. The following day, FN Manufacturing delivered an unsolicited proposal claiming that they were also capable of producing the M4 for the US Army. The Army’s rejection of the proposal led to FN Manufacturing filing suit in the US Court of Federal Claims.
A series of dismissals and appeals ultimately led to FN Manufacturing challenging the Army’s right to give Colt sole-source rights to the M4, given its similarity to the M16. This placed the Army is the awkward position of claiming that the M4 was really far different than the M16 and XM177, after originally claiming that the M4 had about 80% in common with the M16. The US Court of Federal Claims ultimately dismissed FN Manufacturing’s protests, ruling that the Army was well within its rights to forego any claims to the M4 TDP."
And this:
http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/09/27/what-is-the-tdp/
Quote: "MIL-C-70559 is the military specification for the M4, which incorporates Colt’s technical data package (“TDP”). The M4 TDP consists of a series of prints and geometries (dimensions), a system of know-how, operation sheets, quality inspection methods and access to the master list of specifications and standards that comply with the requirements in Colt’s contract with the U.S. military. The TDP outlines the manufacturing process, materials, tolerances, assembly, finishes, proof testing and dimensions needed to manufacture the weapon. The military specifications (“milspecs”) and military standards (“milstds”) into which Colt’s TDP has been incorporated consist of more than two hundred extremely rigorous standards covering inspection, tolerances, targeting, endurance and interchangeability of parts.
Quality-assurance and conformance with milspecs and milstds are maintained by an onsite U.S. government inspector who keeps an office at Colt’s factory and by a number of Colt’s own inspectors. In the last two years, Colt has fired more than 300,000 rounds of ammunition in testing the carbine and has not experienced a single malfunction.
The M4-carbine TDP is proprietary to Colt, and the U.S. government has designated Colt its “sole source” supplier of M4 carbines. Under the M4 Addendum, the U.S. government does not have the right to procure the M4 carbine on a competitive basis.
Under the M4 Addendum, only Colt can manufacture M4 carbines, except in very limited circumstances and subject to a royalty payment to Colt. The M4 Addendum allows other qualified vendors to supply non-critical parts for the M4 carbine, but only if they are using Colt’s TDP. Critical items include the upper and lower receivers, the hand guard, barrels and other components of the M4 carbine.
In 1999 FN Manufacturing, Inc. (“FNMI”), a small-arms manufacturer that supplies M16 rifles to the U.S. government, challenged the government’s decision to proceed with a sole-source procurement of M4 carbines from Colt. On August 9, 1999 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims upheld the legality of the M4 Addendum, and FNMI’s challenge was dismissed."
As regards Dietz's comments from M4C, this is what I managed to pull up:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=83951
Of course, what I wrote earlier was based on my (somewhat faulty these days) memory of the above and a few other articles. I think my comments, although somewhat broad, are generally backed by what I quoted above.
Regards.
Mark
From Colt:
http://www.colt.com/ColtMilitary/Products/ColtM4Carbine.aspx
Quote: "The Colt M4 is the ONLY 5.56mm carbine in the world today that is manufactured to meet or exceed the stringent performance specifications (MILSPEC) required for acceptance and use by the U.S. Armed Forces."
Also this:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Colt-M4-Data-Rights-The-Individual-Carbine-Competition-06942/
Quote: "Contrary to popular misconception, the US Department of Defense does not own the technical data package (TDP) for either the M4 carbine or its parent, the M16 rifle. In June/67, in its role as the DOD’s designated procurement agency, the US Army purchased a license from Colt for the TDP and the rights to produce the M16 family of weapons and its component parts.
Some wonder why Colt proprietary rights to the M16 TDP and M4 TDP are still given such reverence by the Army, long after most applicable patents had expired. For example, the Army paid royalties on second-sourced M16 rifles and parts until 1990. It is more glaring in the case of the M4 as very little of the M4’s original design was ever patented by Colt. The short answer is that the Army agreed to such terms in the original 1967 licensing agreement and its amendments, particularly the infamous “M4 Addendum” of 1997.
The origin of the “M4 Addendum” traces back to the improper release of the M4 TDP by the US Army’s Rock Island Arsenal to the US Navy’s NSWC-Crane in early 1996. NSWC-Crane had requested a copy of the M4A1 TDP to support the solicitation of accessories for the M4 SOPMOD kit. While soliciting an adaptor for training ammunition, NSWC-Crane provided the M4A1 TDP to 21 vendors in August/96. As one of the potential bidders, Colt was very much surprised to receive a copy of their own TDP drawings, and gave notice that the terms of the 1967 Licensing Agreement had breached. NSWC-Crane quickly attempted to recover all copies of the TDP and sent out non-disclosure agreements (NDA) to the other 20 vendors. All of the vendors except FN Manufacturing complied. FN Manufacturing officials had balked on one of the five terms of the NDA, refusing to state whether they had safeguarded the TDP while it was in their possession. Instead, they provided a letter asserting that they had not improperly used the data.
Around the time, the Army announced the procurement of 716 M4A1 and 9,785 M4 carbines. FN Manufacturing submitted an unsolicited bid, which was promptly rejected. However, the damage was done. Connecticut’s Congressional delegation became involved, demanding a DOD Inspector General audit of the Army and Navy’s actions in their handling of the M4 TDP. By the end of the year, Colt announced that the DOD’s failure to adequately to protect the proprietary data constituted a material breach of the 1967 Licensing Agreement. Thus, the licensing agreement would be terminated, and the DOD could no longer use the TDP in the second-source procurement of the M16/M4 or their parts. Colt also threatened a lawsuit, estimating damages from $43.5 – 70 million. In response, the Army claimed that the license could only be terminated if they had not made a best faith effort to correct the situation.
Settlement negotiations between Colt and the Army dragged on through 1997. In December 1997, an agreement was reached. Colt would waive its damage claims and leave the previous terms of the 1967 licensing agreement intact with regards to the M16 TDP. In return, the Army agreed to not use the M4 TDP for competitive procurement for a set period of time, ensuring Colt’s sole-source status. The resulting agreement was dubbed the “M4 Addendum”.
However, FN Manufacturing still hoped to gain a piece of M4 procurement, and found their chance in May/98. The Army announced that it was awarding Colt a $8,296,925 contract for 15,925 M4/M4A1 Carbines. The following day, FN Manufacturing delivered an unsolicited proposal claiming that they were also capable of producing the M4 for the US Army. The Army’s rejection of the proposal led to FN Manufacturing filing suit in the US Court of Federal Claims.
A series of dismissals and appeals ultimately led to FN Manufacturing challenging the Army’s right to give Colt sole-source rights to the M4, given its similarity to the M16. This placed the Army is the awkward position of claiming that the M4 was really far different than the M16 and XM177, after originally claiming that the M4 had about 80% in common with the M16. The US Court of Federal Claims ultimately dismissed FN Manufacturing’s protests, ruling that the Army was well within its rights to forego any claims to the M4 TDP."
And this:
http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/09/27/what-is-the-tdp/
Quote: "MIL-C-70559 is the military specification for the M4, which incorporates Colt’s technical data package (“TDP”). The M4 TDP consists of a series of prints and geometries (dimensions), a system of know-how, operation sheets, quality inspection methods and access to the master list of specifications and standards that comply with the requirements in Colt’s contract with the U.S. military. The TDP outlines the manufacturing process, materials, tolerances, assembly, finishes, proof testing and dimensions needed to manufacture the weapon. The military specifications (“milspecs”) and military standards (“milstds”) into which Colt’s TDP has been incorporated consist of more than two hundred extremely rigorous standards covering inspection, tolerances, targeting, endurance and interchangeability of parts.
Quality-assurance and conformance with milspecs and milstds are maintained by an onsite U.S. government inspector who keeps an office at Colt’s factory and by a number of Colt’s own inspectors. In the last two years, Colt has fired more than 300,000 rounds of ammunition in testing the carbine and has not experienced a single malfunction.
The M4-carbine TDP is proprietary to Colt, and the U.S. government has designated Colt its “sole source” supplier of M4 carbines. Under the M4 Addendum, the U.S. government does not have the right to procure the M4 carbine on a competitive basis.
Under the M4 Addendum, only Colt can manufacture M4 carbines, except in very limited circumstances and subject to a royalty payment to Colt. The M4 Addendum allows other qualified vendors to supply non-critical parts for the M4 carbine, but only if they are using Colt’s TDP. Critical items include the upper and lower receivers, the hand guard, barrels and other components of the M4 carbine.
In 1999 FN Manufacturing, Inc. (“FNMI”), a small-arms manufacturer that supplies M16 rifles to the U.S. government, challenged the government’s decision to proceed with a sole-source procurement of M4 carbines from Colt. On August 9, 1999 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims upheld the legality of the M4 Addendum, and FNMI’s challenge was dismissed."
As regards Dietz's comments from M4C, this is what I managed to pull up:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=83951
Of course, what I wrote earlier was based on my (somewhat faulty these days) memory of the above and a few other articles. I think my comments, although somewhat broad, are generally backed by what I quoted above.
Regards.
Mark
The Colt quote is from their current website, second one I quoted is dated Jun 21, 2011 19:30 EDT, and the third one is dated 27 Sep/10.
I also forgot to add this bit of the quote:
"As of July 1/09, the sole source clause of the “M4 Addendum” expired, allowing the Army to second source production of the M4/M4A1 carbines and their unique parts. Under the terms of the licensing agreement, however, the M4 TDP remains Colt proprietary data. Those terms also state that the US Army would have to pay 5% in royalties to Colt, for every M4/M4A1 carbine and/or their unique parts procured from second sources, for another 26 years – through Dec 24/37.
Second source contractors will also be required to sign non-disclosure agreements, just as they do for the M16. The non-disclosure/ non-use agreements for accessing the TDP will forbid the other companies from using Colt’s proprietary data for commercial sales. Once the second-source vendor’s military contract ends, the company will be required to be destroy all of the TDP information provided to them."
I am not arguing, just stating what my understanding of the situation is. I have been wrong before, and expect that I could be again.
Regards.
Mark
I also forgot to add this bit of the quote:
"As of July 1/09, the sole source clause of the “M4 Addendum” expired, allowing the Army to second source production of the M4/M4A1 carbines and their unique parts. Under the terms of the licensing agreement, however, the M4 TDP remains Colt proprietary data. Those terms also state that the US Army would have to pay 5% in royalties to Colt, for every M4/M4A1 carbine and/or their unique parts procured from second sources, for another 26 years – through Dec 24/37.
Second source contractors will also be required to sign non-disclosure agreements, just as they do for the M16. The non-disclosure/ non-use agreements for accessing the TDP will forbid the other companies from using Colt’s proprietary data for commercial sales. Once the second-source vendor’s military contract ends, the company will be required to be destroy all of the TDP information provided to them."
I am not arguing, just stating what my understanding of the situation is. I have been wrong before, and expect that I could be again.
Regards.
Mark
I managed to find these bits as well.
This is an apparent rebuttal by Colt of the original Army Times article regarding the US Army acquisition of the rights to the M4 from Colt:
http://www.defensereview.com/colt-defense-rebuts-matt-coxs-army-times-article-army-acquires-rights-to-m4/
This is the summary of the FN Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States case from the law firm involved:
http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_article.aspx?ArticleKey=198
This is a copy of the Audit Report by the Office of the Inspector General regarding the accidental release of the TDP:
http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports/fy97/97-165.pdf
Along with the quotes I posted above, it was where I got most of the information that led me to the conclusions I came to.
Regards.
Mark
This is an apparent rebuttal by Colt of the original Army Times article regarding the US Army acquisition of the rights to the M4 from Colt:
http://www.defensereview.com/colt-defense-rebuts-matt-coxs-army-times-article-army-acquires-rights-to-m4/
This is the summary of the FN Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States case from the law firm involved:
http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_article.aspx?ArticleKey=198
This is a copy of the Audit Report by the Office of the Inspector General regarding the accidental release of the TDP:
http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports/fy97/97-165.pdf
Along with the quotes I posted above, it was where I got most of the information that led me to the conclusions I came to.
Regards.
Mark
Hi Mark,
Technically yes, TDP copies are to be destroyed at the end of a contract. If you believe none of the 21 companies besides Colt read, used or kept any part of the TDP, then sure, ok. You'd be right.
I'm not a believer in this nor in the tooth fairy
I guarantee elements of the TDP have been used by Colt's competitors and the full content is known to all of them.
Technically yes, TDP copies are to be destroyed at the end of a contract. If you believe none of the 21 companies besides Colt read, used or kept any part of the TDP, then sure, ok. You'd be right.
I'm not a believer in this nor in the tooth fairy
I guarantee elements of the TDP have been used by Colt's competitors and the full content is known to all of them.
You guys are killing this thread. Really, who gives a s**t? Nobody who has a passing interest in the topic of this thread does. While you two geniuses duke it out to prove who's wright or wrong, there are countless others who just want to know if they're getting a good deal when considering a Spike's branded rifle.
Start another thread if you're so inclined or take it to PM's.
Pretty please?
Start another thread if you're so inclined or take it to PM's.
Pretty please?
My apologies to the OP for derailing the thread.
Oh, wait...
The thread didn't really need any comments aside from my original post, that the rifles appeared to be a pretty good deal, and I posted it for interest only.
Buy the Spikes, it is a good rifle based on the published specs for those who have the budget, bearing in mind that you should also factor in a few decent quality mags, lots of ammo, a sling, maybe an optic, and some training, if you are new to the AR. If you need to spend less, look at something else. If you can spend a bit more, look at the LMT.
Regards.
Mark
Oh, wait...
The thread didn't really need any comments aside from my original post, that the rifles appeared to be a pretty good deal, and I posted it for interest only.
Buy the Spikes, it is a good rifle based on the published specs for those who have the budget, bearing in mind that you should also factor in a few decent quality mags, lots of ammo, a sling, maybe an optic, and some training, if you are new to the AR. If you need to spend less, look at something else. If you can spend a bit more, look at the LMT.
Regards.
Mark
LOL.
@2bad4u2:
MWL and I are debating (I think constructively) the state of compliance to M4 TDP of the various makers. I'll be we both find it interesting or we would not be discussing!
As for the Spikes AR, we all agree they are a nice rifle and anyone in the market for one from questar only needs to decide whether it's worth the extra cash to spring for an LMT at maybe $100 more.
@2bad4u2:
MWL and I are debating (I think constructively) the state of compliance to M4 TDP of the various makers. I'll be we both find it interesting or we would not be discussing!
As for the Spikes AR, we all agree they are a nice rifle and anyone in the market for one from questar only needs to decide whether it's worth the extra cash to spring for an LMT at maybe $100 more.
No, this thread would have been much better if, instead of a debate about technical aspects of the M4, and who is building what, and why, it was just a bunch of guys saying, "yeah, that is a good deal".
Just think of all we could have learned if only you two hadn't screwed it up with information.
Just think of all we could have learned if only you two hadn't screwed it up with information.
Lolz.
I'm not saying "The Great M4 Debate" isn't worth discussing - it's not worth discussing in this thread. If you want to do it justice, start another thread.
But then again, you wouldn't know much about staying on topic, now would you?
To that I would simply be inclined to say that if the OP wants to discuss technical information related to the guns his thread is about...that seems well within reason to me.
What I personally do or do not know about staying on topic seems irrelevant.
What I personally do or do not know about staying on topic seems irrelevant.
