A question about military weapons?

Question

Let me preface this by saying I am not a gun expert, I only own 1 .22lr rifle (Marlin 39a), and hardly go shooting more than 3 times a year.
My question is when a gun designer comes up with a new weapon and the military buys it, Why are other gun companies allowed to manufacture them? I know that 1911's are made by nearly all gun manufacturers, and that AR-15 style rifles and carbines are made by multiple companies, also. Why do the companies that design these weapons not retain the right to be the sole manufacturer of it, like the companies that design civilian guns do?

Answer 1

It's more a matter of intellectual property law than anything that has to do with the military.



The big case that answers your question is the 2005 Colt-Bushmaster lawsuit. There Colt sued Bushmaster for using the term "M4 carbine", as well as making a rifle that looked similar to an M4. The court ruled that Colt does not own neither the name "M4 carbine" or the "look" of an AR-15 rifle for the following reasons:

1) The term "M4" is a generic term, and describes a class of firearms rather than a specific firearm made by one company. Although Colt did register the term "M4", through public use it became so commonplace that essentially the public killed Colt's trademark (a process called "genericide").

2) There's no evidence that people confused a Colt M4 with a Bushmaster M4. In all cases, someone buying an M4 rifle would clearly know whether it was made by Colt or Bushmaster.

3) It doesn't matter that a Colt M4 looks a lot like a Bushmaster M4 because both are purely functional and the Colt design is not inherently distinctive or special.



So it doesn't have anything to do with the military. Instead it just has to do with whether a product (here a firearm) becomes so common over time that it's no longer associated with just one company.



Companies lose the right to the name and design if it becomes sufficiently widespread. Military firearms simply tend to do this faster because for whatever reason civilians like buying the firearms that the military uses, even if they're far from the best. But when a firearm name and design becomes commonplace, then there is no more ownership of them. This would happen to civilian firearms as well if suddenly people started referring to a whole class of semi-automatic rifles as "10/22s", and the term "10/22" didn't bring up any special connection with Ruger.



For non-gun things, a good example is a Thermos, which was actually a brand. But people got so used to Thermos that they started referring to all insulated beverage containers as Thermoses, whether they were manufactured by Thermos or not. So after a while Thermos lost its unique right to its name.

Answer 2

One of the most important aspects, is the fact that it's purely cosmetic. Functionally, there are only a handful of firearm designs. Bolt action, Direct impingement, gas piston, single shot, etc. Functionally, they are all the same, with different minor variations. Now if you transfer that over to something else...Let's say a car. Ford, Chevrolet, etc. all make coupes and sedans, but nobody can lay claim to the coupe or sedan body style, and likewise the operating mechanisms of the AR-15 is nothing that hasn't been around 100 years now, so there's no patent on it. What Colt had (bought from Stoner, as already covered) was a TRADEMARK. They owned the rights to the AR-15 name. That means that any other manufacturer can build the same gun, they just can't use the same name. That's why Stag uses the 15A, 15R3, 15L, 15L2. Remington uses R-15. Etcetera. Again, like in cars, ford designed the first "pony car" with the Mustang...It was a compact chassis, rear wheel drive coupe with a sporty V8. Then Pontiac, Dodge, Chevrolet, Plymouth, etc. all made similar cars, and the "pony car" wars began. But Ford couldn't sue those others for using the same formula, they just couldn't call their cars mustangs. That's why Remington, Ruger, Savage, Mossberg, Leica, etc. can all make a bolt action rifle and they all look alike, and that's why Stag, Ruger, Remington, Rock River, Bushmaster, DPMS can all make AR-15 style rifles, and they all have their own names. The only difference is, they all used the same design for modularity for upgrades and replacements, so you could piece together whatever parts you wanted, thus creating the ability to put a Bushmaster upper with a DPMS lower and Magpul stock and MOE grips and Troy mags and...you get the idea.

Answer 3

Just to add a little to what the others have said, firearms manufacturing for the military can be a complex process, and very profitable for whoever wins a contract. It depends on who owns the rights to the gun.



Armalite's chief engineer Eugene Stoner developed the AR-15. But, Armalite got in financial trouble and in 1959 sold the rights to the AR-15 to Colt. Colt still owns the rights to the name AR-15.



If the military buys the rights to the firearm they can let contracts to one or more companies to produce the gun. For example, during World War II, the M-1 Carbine was contracted out and was produced by lots of companies: Winchester, Inland Manufacturing - a division of General Motors, U.S.Postal Meter, Singer Sewing Machine, IBM, Underwood Typewriter Company, and Rock-Ola Jukebox Company (and more, I forget some). The barrels were made by High Standard. The guns had to be made to the same specification so all parts would be interchangeable.

Answer 4

the patent for the 1911 ran out long ago, so any company can freely manufacture them without legal recourse. as for ar-15s, they either buy the license for the gun(then they can freely manufacture it) or pay per unit to the designer/original manufacturer. they can also modify the original design enough to slip through the patent, showing their copy as a totally different internal design, even though the outside may look similar or identical. S&W actually had some trouble a few years ago with their M&P pistols being so similar to the glocks that now they need to pay a royalty to glock for every M&P manufactured and sold.

Answer 5

The government does buy the gun and the specs. This includes the patents as well. These patents do run out after a period of time (normally many decades). When this happens the other manufactures line up with their version of a classic, such as a 1911; hence the surplus of 1911 designs you find today.

Answer 6

Colt did hold the patents to the AR platform. When they sold to the government, they allowed subcontractors to produce them under licensing. However, now for both the AR, and the 1911, the patents have expired, and anyone with the tools can make them.

Answer 7

The military isnt necessarily buying the rights to the firearm and sometimes the designer is an individual that will sell the blue prints/plans to companys and then manufacter it.

Answer 8

In this old world once the original patent expires you can make just about anything and everything. The law of supply and demand kicks in.

Answer 9

don't understand in the event that they use 'em to any extent further, yet i in my opinion had an excellent time with the 106 mm Recoilless Rifle. Get the undesirable guy's interest with a .50 cal spotter-tracer around and then. . . . . BOOOOOOMMMM!

Answer 10

They do keep the rights, but when they're unable to keep up with demand they farm out the manufacturing through license agreements.

Answer 11

once the patent expires its free game to anyone. evern H&K is making ARs