PDA

View Full Version : FN AR15?


cannonfire
August 9, 2012, 06:23 PM
Just curious if any one thinks that FNH will eventually sell AR15s. They make (or did make) M16s for the military, so I don't see as to why it would be difficult to sell to the civilian market...

I was surfing the FNH website and it got me thinking. I'm not in the market but just more curiosity showing itself.



Some thoughts I had for discussion...

1. FNH could be so backed with military orders that they do not have the production capabilities to launch a civilian market.

2. They do not want to take away the image of the SCAR. By that I mean that FNH introduced the SCAR to replace the M16/M4, so producing AR15s could show that they acknowledge some level defeat when it comes to their designs.

3. They do not want to jump into a flooding AR market.



Personally I think FNH will eventually make an AR, I mean just about every major manufacturer is getting into the AR market in recent years (i.e. HK, S&W, Ruger, even Mossberg and Barrett). I dont know when FNH will join the rest of the major manufacturers, but that is just my Buddha Belly feeling...

Shotgun693
August 9, 2012, 07:22 PM
There's a huge pre-election buying spree going on right now. It might be a little late to jump in the market. If obama wins I expect some sort of AR ban, again not a good time to jump in the market. If obama looses, God I hope, then I think the market for ARs and AKs is going to drop like a fat girl at a skating rink, and nope not a good time to start building ARs.

plouffedaddy
August 9, 2012, 07:29 PM
1. FNH could be so backed with military orders that they do not have the production capabilities to launch a civilian market.

I can personally assure you this isn't the case. I go to the factory here in SC a lot for work and they're always talking about how they're trying to get the M4/A2 contract. They're still cranking out MK19s, 240s, 240Ls, ect... but they're set up to put out some AR rifles but don't have the contract for it yet.

That said, the question still remains valid. I think if they got into the AR game they'd be seen as a 'premium' maker and could charge at least what Colt charges, if not more.

cannonfire
August 9, 2012, 07:33 PM
they're set up to put out some AR rifles but don't have the contract for it yet.

Are they not making M16s for the military?

RamItOne
August 9, 2012, 08:10 PM
Since the late 80s

plouffedaddy
August 9, 2012, 08:48 PM
They get A4 contracts off and on----they're not as consistent as the M4 contract is (constant). During the last bid they said they lost by $6/rifle to Remington. They have their hopes up that Remington won't be able to make a rifle to Colt's proven standards and they know they can (because they have).

barnbwt
August 9, 2012, 09:56 PM
I thought they're still hoping for the SCAR to win the big contracts?

And they don't want to confuse customers (further) with an FN-AR-15 alongside the tactical-looking FNAR :D

At any rate, I'll be they wouldn't make one for cheap. It would be very well made, but probably wouldn't be my first choice (if I was interested in an AR platform). An AR-15 for the price of a SCAR :(

TCB

Palmetto-Pride
August 9, 2012, 10:42 PM
An AR-15 for the price of a SCAR

I always thought I wanted a SCAR until I put one in my hand I will take a AR any day over a SCAR.

cannonfire
August 10, 2012, 07:17 AM
They get A4 contracts off and on----they're not as consistent as the M4 contract is (constant). During the last bid they said they lost by $6/rifle to Remington. They have their hopes up that Remington won't be able to make a rifle to Colt's proven standards and they know they can (because they have).


So they have the machinery and such waiting for them to receive some sort of contract, why not use it for the civilian market? It's not being used...

I also think that is FNH were to sell an AR at the price that Colt does, FNH would be very successful. Now if they tried to pull a Ruger or HK and sell it for 2k, I'd have a problem. FNH is a good company that makes a solid product 1-1.5k I wouldn't mind spending.

Crow Hunter
August 10, 2012, 07:26 AM
From what I understand, they aren't allowed to.

Part of the agreement they signed to allow them to manufacture the M16A2 way back when is that they could not sell rifles to civilians.

I don't know if that was a government action or if Colt did it to prevent competition in the LEO/Civilian markets way back when.

plouffedaddy
August 10, 2012, 08:29 AM
So they have the machinery and such waiting for them to receive some sort of contract, why not use it for the civilian market? It's not being used...

I don't know but Crow Hunter may be on to something....

Perhaps thats why they supply PSA with parts instead of just putting out their own.

insomni
August 10, 2012, 07:45 PM
The only time I saw an FN was in basic. I had an ancient beat up FNH M-16. Shot pretty damned well.

every other rifle I've had in the army were Colt MFG. FN makes the 240's and 249's, with a .50 here and there.

RT
August 10, 2012, 08:51 PM
My understanding is...
FN is restricted to military sales only as they build their rifles using the TDP supplied by the govt.
The contract between Colt & the .Gov allows the .Gov to use the TDP for 'alternate sources' with the stipulation they cannot use said info to compete against Colt in the commercial market.

Palmetto-Pride
August 11, 2012, 11:02 AM
My understanding is...
FN is restricted to military sales only as they build their rifles using the TDP supplied by the govt.
The contract between Colt & the .Gov allows the .Gov to use the TDP for 'alternate sources' with the stipulation they cannot use said info to compete against Colt in the commercial market.

I wonder if they could build one not exactly to the TDP to get around it? I bet FN didn't foresee the popularity of the AR with civilians or they probably wouldn't have gotten themselves locked in a contract like that.

Sinlessorrow
August 11, 2012, 11:40 AM
My understanding is...
FN is restricted to military sales only as they build their rifles using the TDP supplied by the govt.
The contract between Colt & the .Gov allows the .Gov to use the TDP for 'alternate sources' with the stipulation they cannot use said info to compete against Colt in the commercial market.

this is correct, FNH cannot make AR-15's for the civilian market due to their agreement with the government.

They can make other rifles, but they cannot make AR-15's. It's just one more reason to get a Colt because they can use the TDP and they do use the TDP for their civilian rifles.

Quentin2
August 11, 2012, 11:40 AM
I agree with what RT said except I've heard that Colt owns the TDP and the military contract is written so that if another contractor supplies M16 family rifles to the military they cannot use that proprietary information in building ARs for civilians. Of course there are exceptions for small purchases, this is targeted for general issue rifles for the average soldier/marine.

It makes you wonder what Remington will do about civilian sales if they are able to make good on their recent M4 contract. They will now have access to the Colt TDP.

Achilles11B
August 11, 2012, 02:57 PM
Perhaps I missed something. FN can't build civilian AR's at all or they just can't build them to TDP specs?

Palmetto-Pride
August 11, 2012, 05:12 PM
I agree with what RT said except I've heard that Colt owns the TDP and the military contract is written so that if another contractor supplies M16 family rifles to the military they cannot use that proprietary information in building ARs for civilians.

I know I will get flamed for this, but I just don't see what could possibly be in this Holy Grail (TDP) that another decent gun maker certainly FN couldn't reverse engineer or figure out for themselves. Its a AR-15 rifle not nuclear fusion. No I am not metallurgist or a mechanical engineer so don't ask.

Quentin2
August 11, 2012, 05:35 PM
I know I will get flamed for this, but I just don't see what could possibly be in this Holy Grail (TDP) that another decent gun maker certainly FN couldn't reverse engineer or figure out for themselves. Its a AR-15 rifle not nuclear fusion. No I am not metallurgist or a mechanical engineer so don't ask.

In this case it's really not so much what's in the TDP, just that FN agreed to the terms of their military contract. FN does provide parts to PSA and probably BCM.

I've wondered if FN hasn't been supplying AR parts to BCM for a long time given the high quality of BCM products. It would be a way for FN to get into the civilian market.

Sinlessorrow
August 11, 2012, 09:43 PM
I agree with what RT said except I've heard that Colt owns the TDP and the military contract is written so that if another contractor supplies M16 family rifles to the military they cannot use that proprietary information in building ARs for civilians. Of course there are exceptions for small purchases, this is targeted for general issue rifles for the average soldier/marine.

It makes you wonder what Remington will do about civilian sales if they are able to make good on their recent M4 contract. They will now have access to the Colt TDP.

Word on the street is Remington lost the contract......apparently they were recent orders as of last month to Colt for more M4's and M4A1's.

cannonfire
August 12, 2012, 02:35 PM
It makes sense that they would not be able to make an AR due to their military contracts but that would stop them from making one to their own specs?

To me, the uninformed, I would think it would be easier to drop the military contracts and get into the civilian/LE market. But I like FNH a lot so it could just be my ignorance speaking. I have no idea what kind of money they bring in from government contracts but if they are not consistently filling contracts then it seems to me that even if they get into the civilian market on a small scale it would be more profitable than waiting for a government contract. But if they can't build them because of their previous contracts or whatever, I guess none of that matters.

Thanks guys for answering the question

Crow Hunter
August 13, 2012, 07:40 AM
Word on the street is Remington lost the contract......apparently they were recent orders as of last month to Colt for more M4's and M4A1's.

That is what I heard as well.

Colt submitted a protest and it was "sustained". I don't 100% know what that means, but I get the idea that Remington doesn't currently have an official contract/order anymore.

It makes sense that they would not be able to make an AR due to their military contracts but that would stop them from making one to their own specs?

To me, the uninformed, I would think it would be easier to drop the military contracts and get into the civilian/LE market. But I like FNH a lot so it could just be my ignorance speaking. I have no idea what kind of money they bring in from government contracts but if they are not consistently filling contracts then it seems to me that even if they get into the civilian market on a small scale it would be more profitable than waiting for a government contract. But if they can't build them because of their previous contracts or whatever, I guess none of that matters.



If I were in FN's shoes, I wouldn't do it. The market for civilian ARs is fairly deep and is gettting deeper every day. (Thank you Obama;)) However, the margin on civilian sales rifles is bound to be fairly slim, especially when you have to compete with companies that are producing rifles using lower cost (non-milspec) parts for the civilian market.

Historically, FN hasn't been a contender or even very interested in the US civilian market. Their bread and butter has been military sales.

Now they do sell civilian guns, but usually only through subsidiaries like Browning. They do limited runs of them, (SCAR, FN FNC, FN FAL) but even those are supported in the US by Browning. If you buy SCAR spare parts(if you can find them) or have to send one in for warranty work it goes to the Browning service center in Missouri.