Whats all the fuss about stag? cmmg?

Assyrian said:
I am no AR expert...
Click to expand...
Gotcha.

Stag/CMT are strictly civillian as well. Neither of them have military contracts.
Click to expand...
Really? Why are we delayed while they fill a foreign military assistance order?

I'm not surprised that you know little about CMT, they're a quiet company.

It is just a case of people wishing their Stag...which they link to CMT...which they link to Colt..which they link to the Military is somehow better than the others...
Click to expand...
...which they link to CMT... stand on John Downey Drive in New Britain, CT, and see if you can see the link between CMT and Stag Arms.

Their parts are all manufactured in house, from official data, not reverse engineered. They are located 6 miles by road from Colt, and have been a DOD Certified Sub for the M16 since 1974.

CMT continues to do M4 fleet upgrades (from M16), and repair/refurbish contracts, as a subcontractor, for bost domestic and foreign agencies.

To say 'no military contracts' is true and false, Stag Arms doesn't do domestic DOD contracts, they do work for DOD contractors as a sub-contractor.

Civilian only though?, quite incorrect. Over the years CMT has likely manufactured more major components for US .mil M4/M16 firearms than any manufacturer other than Colt and FN.

IMO, People should like Stag Arms because they are high quality, and priced competitively even while coming complete with rear sights, side sling swivels, bolts, milspec receiver extensions, taper pins, warranty, etc, but, IMO the biggie, as a company, they care enough to manufacture rifles specifically for legal export to Canada. They actively care about Canucks getting AR15s, about how their rifles are received here, and with AEI, put lots of time (which = $) into making sure they continue to be available, legally, as the US DOS moves the goalposts. These reasons, and not past Colt connections, are why I hope, and suspect, the rifles are as popular as they are.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. I hope I've replied to your incorrect assumptions in enough detail?

Finally, for others, for all the talk above about supplying Canada, we're out of lowers and halves at the moment :(, and won't have anymore for about a week. The factory has just finished doubling their shop space with a bldg extension, and are now bashing through backorders and complete a couple of large contracts.

DT

EDIT: For a look at some of the 'non-military' items that CMT builds, check out their website at www.continentalmachinetool.com Get the plug in for a 360 view of the old shop floor. Bonus points to anyone who can ID the receivers sitting in the box's!
 
Last edited:
I'll probably get a Stag as my next gun. However, i'm perfectly satisfied with my Olympic Arms K3B. It's accurate, didn't cost an arm and a leg( originally anyway), and the fit and finish are both excellent. It's only had one minor hiccup, and that was my fault.
 
Alright, just got back from checking out a Stag and an LMT at the same time. Both were very nice and there wasnt too much difference in terms of quality, the stag was definately more refined in some places. The LMT had some forge flash behind the trigger and no bevel on the edge of the receiver near the charging handle, there may have been some other things but overall these two manufacturers are the top of the game for civilian sales.

I was also told that of all the guns that had come through, the LMT's were the only ones with a flawless rep. I still plan on keeping the stag on order as its an amazing deal for the price but for now I think this LMT will suit my upper just fine :)

Oh I forgot to mention that upon inspecting an MRP upper, I noticed the surface finish was rough in some places and odd looking, most likely from forging, but I was still surprised not to see it machined off (vis's are nicer imo)
 
Last edited:
dangertree said:
Gotcha.

... the fact remains, as a M16/M4 subcontractor, CMT have continuous access to the latest M4/M16 Technical Data Package.
Click to expand...

I will not dispute that CMT/Stag may be involved with military contracts, but if CMT is supplied with current TDP data then they are certainly forbidden to use that information in making parts for their own rifles.

Why does FN not sell rifles to civilians? Because the US government's license from Colt doesn't allow it. If the government is subcontracting to CMT, then they are working from the same license, and therefore no production data that originated at Colt may be used to benefit CMT's commercial manufacture.

If, on the other hand, Colt is subcontracting directly to CMT, well, I suppose they could have written an agreement that allowed Stag to use Colt data to make a product to compete against Colt, but given how vigorously Colt has been filing lawsuits against everybody who tinkered with their TDP, I strongly doubt it.

My guess is that if Colt ever caught official TDP data migrating from CMT military production to Stag commercial production, both companies would be sued out of existence, right now.
 
BattleRife said:
I will not dispute that CMT/Stag may be involved with military contracts, but if CMT is supplied with current TDP data then they are certainly forbidden to use that information in making parts for their own rifles.

Why does FN not sell rifles to civilians? Because the US government's license from Colt doesn't allow it. If the government is subcontracting to CMT, then they are working from the same license, and therefore no production data that originated at Colt may be used to benefit CMT's commercial manufacture.

If, on the other hand, Colt is subcontracting directly to CMT, well, I suppose they could have written an agreement that allowed Stag to use Colt data to make a product to compete against Colt, but given how vigorously Colt has been filing lawsuits against everybody who tinkered with their TDP, I strongly doubt it.

My guess is that if Colt ever caught official TDP data migrating from CMT military production to Stag commercial production, both companies would be sued out of existence, right now.
Click to expand...

FN's contract expired in 2004. They're no longer making any M4's/M16's. Colt won the contract back. The reason FN doesn't build an AR for the civilian market is because with the gazillion other AR variants on the market, it probably wouldn't sell.
 
Dr_Scholl said:
FN's contract expired in 2004. They're no longer making any M4's/M16's. Colt won the contract back. The reason FN doesn't build an AR for the civilian market is because with the gazillion other AR variants on the market, it probably wouldn't sell.
Click to expand...

Any sources to confirm this? FNMI was practically the exclusive manufacturer for most of the USMC's new A4's....
 
Dr_Scholl said:
FN's contract expired in 2004. They're no longer making any M4's/M16's. Colt won the contract back. The reason FN doesn't build an AR for the civilian market is because with the gazillion other AR variants on the market, it probably wouldn't sell.
Click to expand...

????

FN has never made whole M4s. But they still hold this award:
FN Manufacturing Inc., Columbia, S.C., was awarded on March 30, 2005, a delivery order amount of $6,691,046 as part of a $29,778,298 firm-fixed-price contract for M16A4 rifle and M4 carbine. Work will be performed in Columbia, S.C., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were two bids solicited on Dec. 20, 2004, and two bids were received. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W52H09-05-D-0080).


But no matter what contracts they currently hold, they are subject to these kind of restrictions, taken from a contract solicitation for M16A3 and M16A4 rifles, issued September 10, 2007:
" DISPOSITION OF DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS JUL/2007

(a) There are documents included in the Technical Data Package which have been marked with the following Legend:
'This entire document and all information thereon is proprietary to Colt's Inc. ...'
(b) It is required that the Contractor must maintain the legend intact...
(c) Upon completion of the purposes for which these documents have been issued, the contractor is required to destroy or have
destroyed all documents bearing the above legend...
(d) The Contractor's attention is specifically directed to the fact that, under this Contract, any technical data which is
restricted as to use by a legend such as that set forth in paragraph (a) above shall not be furnished to others in connection with
manufacture or procurement activities unless it is clearly and indelibly marked to restrict its use

Also take a look at the this clause, part of the NDA in clause 002:
"The undersigned, as an authorized representative of
____________________________________ (insert company name)
(hereinafter "the recipient"), in consideration of being
furnished with Colt's data related to the M16 Family of Weapons,
hereby agrees that the recipient will only use the said data it
receives for the purpose of responding to a Government
solicitation or performing a resultant Government contract."

In short, FN (and all other contractors) doesn't make AR-15s for the civilian market because THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO. FN does not have an independant manufacturing license for the AR-15. They are only a subcontractor for the US government, who has held a license to produce AR-15s for their own use since 1968. Use of the Colt TDP to produce rifles for use by any except the US government is completely prohibited.
 
You can copy it without being sued does not mean the technical data developed by Colt is everyone's else. The government can give the data to people who is in contract for the purpose of making things for the government.

However, it does not mean Joe Blow can walk into the government to demand the government to hand the data over. You are free to reverse engineer, make knock off or whatsover but no one is giving you help.

Of course, there is nothing to stop you from making your own drawings or taking notes while you have the TPD sitting right next to you as a reference. - read those four clauses carefully.
 
Last edited:
smak_daddy said:
:owned:
Click to expand...

??? What are you talking about?? :jerkit:

An informative answer was provided becuase of my thought provoking post, you should be thanking me.

My issue was the use of *mil-Spec as a reason one lower was better. "I'm a D.o.D contractor, my stuff is better." I'm sure it is just fine, but how far down the chain do you go waving the *mil-spec banner, I make stuff for the goverment ?

The little chinese factory that makes the boot laces, I guess they are a *Mil-Spec supplier too??

There are drawings and CAD files all over for the ar-15 lowers. If I invested some $$$ I could make some as well. Just as good or better than CMT, why not...but some people woulnd't believe they were better unless I had a military contract??
 
Last edited:
greentips said:
Of course, there is nothing to stop you from making your own drawings or taking notes while you have the TPD sitting right next to you as a reference. - read those four clauses carefully.
Click to expand...

Gonna have to disagree with that, GT. If I requote a couple of those clauses more fully, I think the intent is clear:

(a) There are documents included in the Technical Data Package which have been marked with the following Legend:
'This entire document and all information thereon is proprietary to Colt's Inc. and shall not be reproduced, duplicated or copied in
whole or in part, disclosed or made available to any other person, firm or corporation or otherwise used except to the extent necessary
for and then only in connection with the preparation and/or submission of bids or proposals related to a procurement being affected by
the United States Government or in connection with the manufacture in the United States either by the United States Government or under
a contract with the United States Government. This document will be disposed of in accordance with instructions issued by the
responsible Contracting Officer upon completion of the purpose for which it was issued.'

(c) Upon completion of the purposes for which these documents have been issued, the contractor is required to destroy or have
destroyed all documents bearing the above legend, including all reproductions, duplications or copies thereof as may have been further
distributed by the Contractor. Immediately after destruction thereof, a Certificate of Destruction will be furnished to the Contracting
Officer, which will include identification of the documents and quantity thereof, as well as the date of destruction.

(This document may be accessed at https://aais.ria.army.mil/AAIS/Padds_web/W52H0907R0205/0000.pdf, with the quoted bits starting on page 29)

You cannot copy information from the TDP into your own files for any use other than US government contract work, and you must identify that information as being protected, and you must destroy that information when done with the contract.

Of course, this would be very hard for Colt to police, and because the TDP has been circulated to so many entities over the years many bits of it have leaked out. But who knows which of the many files out there is reverse engineered, which is old Colt, which is current Colt? And, if somebody did start making rifles using the data floating around out there, Colt could still likely sue them, if the data origianted somehow from Colt and they got wind of it.

I am not saying that CMT does not make an excellent rifle. I am just saying they cannot use their position as a contractor to benefit their civilan rifle production. They certainly cannot, as dangertree has suggested, take information from the TDP and build Stag rifles using it. To suggest they do may get CMT into trouble.
 
'This entire document and all information thereon is proprietary to Colt's Inc. and shall not be reproduced, duplicated or copied in
whole or in part, disclosed or made available to any other person, firm or corporation or otherwise used except to the extent necessary

You cannot make copies - but as I have said before, you can do you own dwgs with the TDP as your reference and no one can stop you.

You can see that there is a loophole in there, THey should have added " utilizing any information from the datapack" instead of saying only "reproducing, replicating and copying" in part or as a whole"all documents bearing the above legend" . Anyone who came across the information use it as reference as long as they don't copy the documents. If my package states that the hole is to be drilled 0.76" +/- 0.02 from the center line, but the package says the hole is to be drilled at 0.776" +/- 0.002" - thre is no evidencing of " copying".
 
BattleRife said:
They certainly cannot, as dangertree has suggested, take information from the TDP and build Stag rifles using it. To suggest they do may get CMT into trouble.
Click to expand...

Didn't suggest that. I was responding to someone saying they've never built anything but civilian end-user guns. What I am saying is that they know how to build a rifle correctly. The Stag Arms rifle is an AR15, not an M4.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom