Remington Wins SOCOM Sniper Rifle Contract

#51
I'm a ways out of that loop now, but for some reason I remember hearing about an ammo requirement as part of the contract. I wonder if Freedom Group having Barnes tipped the contest in their favor. I was pulling for the new TRG to win but the MSR, TRG, and AX all seem to be pretty solid rifles, albeit a little heavy and bloated.

Also, didn't we already know this news like 6 weeks ago at least? When I saw the headline on all the blogs I was thinking how they were a little behind the times.


Justin
 
#52
I am happy for remington. Plenty of business is going to European firearms firms. Don't forget H&K got the M27/IAR contract for the USMC. And please tell me how this rifle can be any less accurate or reliable than the AI, jeebus.
 
#53
Good to know the ole gooberment went cheap, figures. I sure hope freedom poop actually spends some time and quality parts building these.
 
#57
BigJoe29 said:
i'll bet you think that you should buy a chevy and ford truck too cuz it brings more jobs to the US? did you know the tundra is more made in the US then the ford or chevy equivalent? Yet i see the military driving a lot of f250's and silverados? just saying
Click to expand...

When a company makes sales most of the proceeds go to the company's HQ. If its a USA based company sales abroad and here tend to go to the USA base.
If you buy a Tundra a large part of the proceeded go to Toyota's HQ which is not in the USA.

I am glad the military sources product made in USA and better yet with USA based companies.
 
#58
its funny you think ford and chevy and are any more US owned, i would love for money to stay stateside if the product offered is worth buying. when your not the end user i'm sure its awesome to see the money stay here. "merica and all that shit when you use it down range and its a shit product these processes look less appealing.
 
#59
Any way you cut it $15,000 for a rifle system like this is a waste of taxpayer money! I want our guys to have the best but there is no need for them to have the best and then adding $10,000 of stuff for no good reason. This is right up there with a $500 toilet seat.
 
#60
I personally know someone who is making "something" for the SOCOM version of this rifle. It's very high quality.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the 700 action rifles in general so I don't have a dog in this fight either way.

But I was told, by my same friend who is making "something", that Remington showed up at the SOCOM trails ready to play. They showed up early. Brought multiple iterations of their rifles. Test fired and confirmed dope in that environment, and brought full support staff to adjust as needed.

Some of the other competitors showed up cold. Had minimal or no spares, or backups, and fired their first shots on the record. I recall one maker didn't even shoot spec ammo in their rifle BEFORE the test!

I can't tell you if the opinions posted about Remington are true or not. Maybe both. But I can say, without a doubt, once again, God as my witness, there are people in the world who choose to be poor. Some showed up at the SOCOM PSR testing.

TTR
 
#61
Massoud said:
I'm a ways out of that loop now, but for some reason I remember hearing about an ammo requirement as part of the contract. I wonder if Freedom Group having Barnes tipped the contest in their favor. I was pulling for the new TRG to win but the MSR, TRG, and AX all seem to be pretty solid rifles, albeit a little heavy and bloated.

Also, didn't we already know this news like 6 weeks ago at least? When I saw the headline on all the blogs I was thinking how they were a little behind the times.


Justin
Click to expand...
You're right, it is old news: http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-bolt-action-rifles/178163-remington-wins-psr.html

And I couldn't agree with you more on "heavy and bloated". I would absolutely hate busting brush with that fat ass pig of a rifle that will snag every damn vine in the swamp. I hope the Marine Corps sees it for what it really is and sticks with what actually serves the amphibious mission of the Corps. Quit fighting the last war, plan for the next one.

I'm going back to hugging my M40A1 while reminiscing about the good ol' days of Alice packs, HMMWVs hitting the beaches, Zodiac raids and jungle boots.
 
#63
BigJoe29 said:
its funny you think ford and chevy and are any more US owned, i would love for money to stay stateside if the product offered is worth buying. when your not the end user i'm sure its awesome to see the money stay here. "merica and all that shit when you use it down range and its a shit product these processes look less appealing.
Click to expand...


Nothing funny about Ford Motor Company.... Its a USA based , owned and operated company and did not take $1 of tax payer money for any BS bailouts.
( For over 100 years)

I cant speak for Chevrolet becasue I am not familair with the company or ownership / operation.


Ford Motor Company was founded over 100 years ago by an American.
Henry Ford and his family built the business from scratch and still own major shares of the company. The company is also owned by stockholders and investors.
The Ford Motor Company is now a global enterprise. And although the company produces and sells vehicles all over the globe, the headquarters are are in Dearborn, Michigan-U.S.A. The Company employs people all over the world, but the profits (or lack of) from the global enterprises are returned to the parent company in the U.S.A.
 
#65
Turk said:
It's funny that you say that; but the same has been said about AI in their trials in England as they barely beat out Parker Hale.
Click to expand...

+1 having known some of the AI testing team.

The true 'expense' is the post-purchase maintenance program.

Besides the politics involved, the US Military is fully geared-up towards the maintenance of Remington weapons.

Remington will the probably get them back every 5 or so years for a decent overhaul

They make money on the repair bills
 
#66
reelman said:
Any way you cut it $15,000 for a rifle system like this is a waste of taxpayer money! I want our guys to have the best but there is no need for them to have the best and then adding $10,000 of stuff for no good reason. This is right up there with a $500 toilet seat.
Click to expand...

$15,000 may sound like a lot when you are used to popping $4000-$5000 on a custom rifle. When the military receives these rifles it is a whole lot more than just a rifle. It is rifle, sling, suppressor, bipods, 10 magazines (approximately), magazine pouches, cleaning kit, cleaning rod, lube, soft case, hard case, rings, scope, scope base, lens covers, sometimes a clip on night vision device, tool kit, and numerous other things. This rifle is for multiple calibers so add multiple barrels, bolts, and probably a bunch more magazines. Is it overpriced still? Maybe, but the manufacturer is going to need a profit one way or the other, and the purchase price also covers free and complete maintenance for however many years specified in the contract.

There are a ton of ways your taxpayer dollars are wasted by the military and the government. This sniper rifle is about the least meaningful to concern yourself over.
 
Last edited:
#67
BuhLockay said:
How dare you, sir! I finished my Defense Acquisitions class less than 3 months ago and hoped I'd never see that chart again. And here it pops up in one of my happy places. I instinctively reached for a pencil to jab in my eye when the link opened.
Click to expand...

It's like a bad penny, once you find it, you can never really loose it. I'm a end user/ knuckle dragger that got caught in it's blast radius. It's kind of like the Indiana Jones movie when they open the Ark and anyone who looks at it has their face melted off. ;D
 
#68
After reading all the bashing on Remington products.. Here is my $.02. Im a new employee to Remington as a machinist. I can tell you everyone there builds to the best that we can. We have a lot of personal pride in the work we do there. Are we perfect, no, do we strive to be, yes!
This new contract gave me and many others jobs!

Im done, Dont want to hijack this thread.
 
#69
Because of the trickle-down nature of gear and TTPs from SOF to conventional units, we can expect the PSR to replace the XM2010 in about 8-10 years.
 
#70
I'm not saying I know one way or the other, because I do not. But, I wonder how many of the people here saying that the Remington is an inferior product to the AI have ever used or even seen a Remington MSR. I wonder what an AI rifle made to a $600 price point would look.

A lot of members here have used AI rifles because they are offered to the public. They are excellent and they are expensive. GM makes some terrible shitboxes but also makes some legitimately world beating cars like the CTS-v. With the resources at Remington's disposal there's no reason they couldn't engineer a rifle that performs as well as an AI at the price point we're talking about. I wish they'd offer the new rifle to the public at a competitive price.
 
#71
On at least one point , magazine , I doubt the MSR could be as smooth or as reliable as the double stack/feed mag on the AI AX338 series when in 338LM , YEAH right ?

The MSR mags look like double stack/single feed ?

Later Chris
 
#72
spartan67 said:
After reading all the bashing on Remington products.. Here is my $.02. Im a new employee to Remington as a machinist. I can tell you everyone there builds to the best that we can. We have a lot of personal pride in the work we do there. Are we perfect, no, do we strive to be, yes!
This new contract gave me and many others jobs!
Click to expand...

Congratulations on your job!

If you get the chance to bring new ideas to management, advised them there are a lot of shooters wishing they would come out with a 260 and/or 6.5 creedmoor in a varmint contoured barrel that has a 1 turn in 8 to 1:8.5 rifling as well as a 1:7 twist 223 varmint with a nato type chamber on the R700 actions...
 
#73
scatsob said:
I do contracting for the government (navy) and it is what it is. The federal acquisition regulations (FAR) lays out all the rules and regulations and they are followed pretty strictly without predjuce. It is not a perfect system but it is place to protect both the government and the contractors. And $80M is a drop in the bucket, and that's not to say that we are no good stewards of the taxpayers dollars, but take a look at the F35 program and how much that will end up costing after it is all said and done.

On comparing this to the AI, I seriously doubt there is much difference in quality between the two rifles. The only thing the AI has on the Remington is it has been around longer.
Click to expand...


Remington isnt even on the same level as AI. Remingtons suck compared to AI.
 
#74
Whit said:
Remington isnt even on the same level as AI. Remingtons suck compared to AI.
Click to expand...

Whit, I am not disagreeing with you on that statement. But....and this is a big but....there are more metrics besides what the end user likes or prefers. This I am sure seems counter-intuitative, but here is something to consider. And.....again I agree with your statement on it's face.

I wasn't privy to any of the process I am about you talk about. But I have heard this a few times and it makes some sense. Look at the Navy SEALS and Nightforce scopes. I doubt too many people on this forum would say that Nightforce is the best glass on the planet? I think comparatively speaking, one could insert your comment about Remington VS AI into a "NF vs [Insert Uber Glass Maker here] statement.

And generally....that would be correct. But something being THAT GOOD doesn't mean that NF is crap. Far from it. It obviously meets the parameters the SEALS needed. And one of those parameters I have heard repeatedly was Nightforce's support commitment to the SEALS worldwide. In the real world, stuff breaks. Either on it's own, or gets damaged due to outside forces. It's a fact of life. And isn't a reflection on any make. NOTE: I don't own a NF optic. And don't plan on it. I am not shilling for NF.

The SEALS "might" have made the argument that while Nightforce isn't what the cool kids like, they get replacements lickity-split and still very nice glass. Where the other makers you get Uber nice glass, but the backend support wasn't as fast. What's better for their needs, then?

And this metric isn't just limited to this one product, or industry or military. Look at high-end cars for a much more common example. The Uber cool car-kids would typically say that "Mercedes Benz is crap compared to Bentley". Both are VERY nice cars. But here is something to consider....the single most expensive, tricked out, AMG, V-12 Twin-Turbo, Monster-Maybach death machine can be serviced at any Mercedes Benz dealer in the country.

The Bentley.....you may have to truck that son-of-a-gun a couple hundred miles to your nearest Bentley dealer. And parts...you may have to wait 6 months for a replacement fender to be made?

In either case, the customer will decide what is best for him. I'm sure the SEALS or SOCOM know what they are doing and have a good reason for doing what they do. Just as I am sure your purchase decisions on rifles and gear were just as informed. At my age and experience, I am a little more philosophical about such things.

TTR

P.S. I also am not convinced that all of the makers solicited were really trying to win this contract.
 
#75
Well said above. My only comment is the statment "remington sucks compared to AI" is not really applicable here because we on this forum (for the most part at least) have no experience with the new Remington action being produced for this contract. Time will tell I guess, but certainly an SPS Tactical is not as good as an AI, but then it costs about 10x less and does not shoot 10x worse.
 
#76
P.S. I also am not convinced that all of the makers solicited were really trying to win this contract.
Click to expand...

The following statement isn't specifically about this contract, just an overall observation on the contracting process.

I say this from my first hand personal experience in seeing mfgrs bring their item(s) to the solicitation table as a green suiter. One does not enter into a solicitation if they are not trying to win it. The process of answering a solicitation and preparing and having all the technical data and other paperwork to include the required amount of test samples is both a manpower and financial investment; I don't know anyone in bussiness that enters with the intent to lose.

What I have seen, and these are my personal observations and comments, is that not all mfgrs come to the table with their A game from day 1. What I mean by that is that they know it is a long and drawn out process and some mfgrs half ass it thinking that they got their foot in the door, they just have to make it to the end and lowball the price when it comes to downselect time. In almost all cases the technical specifications requirements are quiet detailed in what the item must have/do to meet the requirement. There is no real guessing in a "what are they looking for?" sense of mind. With that said, I have seen mfgrs show up with samples that at best could be labeled prototypes and if they brought 3 samples, none of the 3 were identical yet the mfgr claims they are all the same model. If the item has muultiple parts or configurations I have seen mfgrs leave the required T&E samples with out having all of the parts needed to put it in all of the configurations. Likewise the people who present their companies items be it a verbal and or physical /technical demonstration have some times shown up unprepared to answer both general and technical questions from the 7lb brain people from PEO soldier/Natick and even knuckle draggers like me. It seems some show up thinking "the product will speak for itself duriing testing and evaluation" attitude. This always amazes me as typically what is at stake is multimillions of dollars and years of product support and maintenance packages, sometimes in areas where another chance to compete again for the contract might be decades away.

So what I've seen is that some companies do their proper prep before the solicitation hits the street so they have all their ducks in a row from day 1 from A to Z to include the training materials and documentation that isn't even required until after contract award according to the TechSpec requirements, literally a turn key ready to go package. Others show up with glue still drying, incomplete parts or rough looking samples with the hopes to work on it during the interim and work the bugs out, fully knowing they couldn't provide a complete and finished product from A to Z if someone said "we'll take it now".

Now some of this I think stems from not being exposed to the entire process involved and how in depth it is, just general lack of experience or knowledge in what is entailed with the solicitation and subsequent selection processes. Others, some who fully know what is entailed and have been through the process before, show up with a lacksidasical attitude for whatever reason. Lastly, there is usually one or two mfgrs who are clearly out of their league, have a product that is known to be less than adaquate or lack the production facilities/out put capability that throw their hat into the mix just hoping to make it to the end and provide a price per unit that the other mfgrs cannot compete with. These mfgrs usually get weeded out early during the process but on occassion there might only be 2 submitions/mfgrs who answered the solicitation. I have seen where a clearly superior product was not choosen over an inferior product simply on the price point. What typically happens is that even though the inferior mfgr won the contract, the subsequent testing and production reveals the shortfalls and the program is cancelled and the process has to start all over again. I find this frustrating as it means knuckle draggers like me aren't getting the gear we need in a timely manner because a mfgr gamed the system so to speak. The end result is the Gov't buys X amount of the item, the mfgr makes soome money, but it is never fielded to troops.

I have focused on alot of the negative aspects as there are typically more good aspects seen from mfgrs than the negative and even some of the good mfgrs fall somewhere in between being Varsity and JV in some area of the contract/process and if they tightened their shot group up they could easily by Varsity across the board. Overall though, if you throw your hat into the ring as a mfgr, you should have your shit wired tight from day 1 as any good leader knows that no plan survives the first contact.
 
Last edited:
#77
While NF may not have the best glass; glass alone doesn't make a scope the top pick. Ruggedness,reliability, repeatability, service are some other factors to consider. I love how people like to compare a $500 platform to a $7K+ platform! Judging by this thread I must be one of the few to not actually get my hands on the new Remington! In the USA not only can we compete, but we can make it better.
 
#78
Turk said:
While NF may not have the best glass; glass alone doesn't make a scope the top pick. Ruggedness,reliability, repeatability, service are some other factors to consider. I love how people like to compare a $500 platform to a $7K+ platform! Judging by this thread I must be one of the few to not actually get my hands on the new Remington! In the USA not only can we compete, but we can make it better.
Click to expand...

We must live in different USA's.
 
#80
RE the Brit trials , the PH M85 & the AI PM rifle , it was a bit contraversal at the time , as Parker Hale was a established builder or rifles , and AI was not only a new start up company , BUT it had no real factory , it really could not supply enough rifles , so much so that they grabbed a heap of Parker Hale M85s at the same time as buying all the AI PMs that AI could deliver .
The other THING was at the time it seemed a rather radical design/look , but it was more accurate at long range & it did have a good 10 shot mag design , both things the Brits wanted , remembering that both 303 & 7.62 Lee Enfield No4Ts had 10rd mags .
I have both AI AW ( deffers from PM model in saftey & grip lenght & ice flutes on bolt , but offer wise still basically a AI PM ) , and a Parker Hale M85 , and have some idea as to how they are to use .

Later Chris
 
#81
Niles Coyote said:
Congratulations on your job!

If you get the chance to bring new ideas to management, advised them there are a lot of shooters wishing they would come out with a 260 and/or 6.5 creedmoor in a varmint contoured barrel that has a 1 turn in 8 to 1:8.5 rifling as well as a 1:7 twist 223 varmint with a nato type chamber on the R700 actions...
Click to expand...

As the girls used to say to me when I lived in Singapore... "Dream on White-Boy"

N
 
#83
InkedIan said:
"Remington Defense will utilize two other FGI companies in the production process. Barnes Bullets will produce ammunition and Advanced Armament Corporation (AAC) will manufacture muzzle brakes and suppressors."

Huh... Contract goes to FGI owned by Cerberus partly ran by politicians... Go figure..
Click to expand...

The perversion of the Golden Rule: "The guys with the gold make the rules."
 
#84
TacticaltshirtsREP said:
Whit, I am not disagreeing with you on that statement. But....and this is a big but....there are more metrics besides what the end user likes or prefers. This I am sure seems counter-intuitative, but here is something to consider. And.....again I agree with your statement on it's face.

I wasn't privy to any of the process I am about you talk about. But I have heard this a few times and it makes some sense. Look at the Navy SEALS and Nightforce scopes. I doubt too many people on this forum would say that Nightforce is the best glass on the planet? I think comparatively speaking, one could insert your comment about Remington VS AI into a "NF vs [Insert Uber Glass Maker here] statement.

And generally....that would be correct. But something being THAT GOOD doesn't mean that NF is crap. Far from it. It obviously meets the parameters the SEALS needed. And one of those parameters I have heard repeatedly was Nightforce's support commitment to the SEALS worldwide. In the real world, stuff breaks. Either on it's own, or gets damaged due to outside forces. It's a fact of life. And isn't a reflection on any make. NOTE: I don't own a NF optic. And don't plan on it. I am not shilling for NF.

The SEALS "might" have made the argument that while Nightforce isn't what the cool kids like, they get replacements lickity-split and still very nice glass. Where the other makers you get Uber nice glass, but the backend support wasn't as fast. What's better for their needs, then?

And this metric isn't just limited to this one product, or industry or military. Look at high-end cars for a much more common example. The Uber cool car-kids would typically say that "Mercedes Benz is crap compared to Bentley". Both are VERY nice cars. But here is something to consider....the single most expensive, tricked out, AMG, V-12 Twin-Turbo, Monster-Maybach death machine can be serviced at any Mercedes Benz dealer in the country.

The Bentley.....you may have to truck that son-of-a-gun a couple hundred miles to your nearest Bentley dealer. And parts...you may have to wait 6 months for a replacement fender to be made?

In either case, the customer will decide what is best for him. I'm sure the SEALS or SOCOM know what they are doing and have a good reason for doing what they do. Just as I am sure your purchase decisions on rifles and gear were just as informed. At my age and experience, I am a little more philosophical about such things.

TTR

P.S. I also am not convinced that all of the makers solicited were really trying to win this contract.
Click to expand...


I am not trying to say Rem is crap or anything like that. The only thing I was saying is that its not at the same level rifle to rifle as a AI. I dont know the whole contract thing but there is alot more then rifles that go into them. Remington has parts galore all over the place where AI doesnt. Remington also might have a better service contract too, I dont know. AI is known for its ruggedness, repeatability and performance. I was comparing rifle to rifle.

I am guessing that alot of others would agree with me also. Let me say it again IN NO WAY AM I SAYING REM IS JUNK. There is alot of good things about remington, It has a large following that allows parts (factory and after market) and ect to be everywhere you go.
 
#86
Turk,

I think ChrisF above has some valuable input he's holding back on, but MY understanding, not being involved, but following VERY closely, was that the AI outshot the other rifles. In terms of the then issued sniper rifle, by some considerable margin!

Yes, AI was virtually being run out of a garden shed at that time, but the proof of the product is that is in service with how many countries now?? Even the Germans have adopted it, and that says a lot, since I figure they know a thing or two about building high quality, accurate rifles.

My buddy went from the L42 to the L96, and he said it was chalk and cheese. L96 was just vastly superior.

And they have continued to improve it over the last, what? 20 years?

Their factory is now a state of the art manufacturing facility, exporting to all corners of the world. Not bad for 2 blokes that started in a 6'x4' garden shed!
 
#87
Reading some of the replies makes me wonder how Carlos Hathcock survived with his meager rife & Redfield scope back in the day.

Top notch equipment is great but a lot of the success is the operator.
If only Carlos had a. 338.........
 
#88
Which remington? The 700 or the one that won the contract? One we know a lot about, one we don't and therefore can't really compare anything with the limited knowledge on this board.

Whit said:
I am not trying to say Rem is crap or anything like that. The only thing I was saying is that its not at the same level rifle to rifle as a AI. I dont know the whole contract thing but there is alot more then rifles that go into them. Remington has parts galore all over the place where AI doesnt. Remington also might have a better service contract too, I dont know. AI is known for its ruggedness, repeatability and performance. I was comparing rifle to rifle.

I am guessing that alot of others would agree with me also. Let me say it again IN NO WAY AM I SAYING REM IS JUNK. There is alot of good things about remington, It has a large following that allows parts (factory and after market) and ect to be everywhere you go.
Click to expand...
 
#89
Papa Zero Three said:
The following statement isn't specifically about this contract, just an overall observation on the contracting process.

I say this from my first hand personal experience in seeing mfgrs bring their item(s) to the solicitation table as a green suiter. One does not enter into a solicitation if they are not trying to win it. The process of answering a solicitation and preparing and having all the technical data and other paperwork to include the required amount of test samples is both a manpower and financial investment; I don't know anyone in bussiness that enters with the intent to lose. .
Click to expand...

You are correct. I overstated an impression trying to prove a point. What was relayed to me was some of the companies that showed didn't seem to be as squared away as others by a large degree. Enough so that it left a very strong impression on the participants. Irrespective of general reputation in the community.

TTR
 
#90
NOW I'M VENTING!

The SOCOM solitication and L O N G (and screwed up with many added requirements) testing process by SOCOM seemed geared toward eliminating excellent foreign made PSRs like AI and Sako. Plus carefully written requirements edged out the innovative Desert Tactical Arms Stealth Scout entry.

IMHO the DTA entry SHOULD have won if they were going for an American supplier and Barrett's MRAD entry would have been a VERY close second and MUCH better than the "winner". The DTA is lots simpler to maintain than the Remington/Cadex/Surefire product and the Barrett bolt is as slick as snot on a doorknob.

Seems like foreign militaries like the DTA and Barrett rifles, and AI holds the prize for most chosen PSR by other militaries. That tell you sumpin'??

But hey, that's politics. What we got was "notta too bad" but it could have been better.
 
Last edited:
#91
Eric B. said:
NOW I'M VENTING!

The SOCOM solitication and L O N G (and screwed up with many added requirements) testing process by SOCOM seemed geared toward eliminating excellent foreign made PSRs like AI and Sako. Plus carefully written requirements edged out teh innovative Desert Tactical Arms Stealth Scout entry.

IMHO the DTA entry SHOULD have won if they were going for an American supplier and Barrett's MRAD entry wouild have been a VERY close second and MUCH better than the "winner". The DTA is lots simpler to maintain than the Remington/Cadex/Surefire product and the Barrett bolt is as slick as snot on a doorknob.

Seems like foreign militaries like the DTA and Barrett rifles, and AI holds the prize for most chosen PSR by other militaries. That tell you sumpin'??

But hey, that's politics. What we got was "notta too bad" but it could have been better.
Click to expand...

Are you privy to the requirements; if so let's hear it? If one cannot meet the requirements ; how is it an entry? And if a "slick as snot" bolt constitutes the winner I would think the Blaser would've fared pretty well! What gives you the impression that the Remington is harder to maintain then others; ...personal experience? The fact is most on here weren't there and have virtually no "hands on" experience w/ the Remington and are just venting! Some are ticked because their dog didn't win and possibly now that some SF types are going to be seen w/ the MSR and most likely on some type of "Call of Duty" game it somehow diminishes their manhood! There will always be something new, and most likely will be some type of controversy. Don't concern yourself w/ those SF types; they will pretty much succeed regardless of the tool given to them. In the mean time enjoy your rifle, regardless of how you perceive other's may view it. There are so many things that go into government trials that most including myself cannot fully understand. Accuracy,reliability,price,parts,service,meeting production demands....and yes politics. These are great times for us as there are many great choices....if you can afford it; pick your poison.
 
#93
Eric B. said:
NOW I'M VENTING!

The SOCOM solitication and L O N G (and screwed up with many added requirements) testing process by SOCOM seemed geared toward eliminating excellent foreign made PSRs like AI and Sako. Plus carefully written requirements edged out teh innovative Desert Tactical Arms Stealth Scout entry.

IMHO the DTA entry SHOULD have won if they were going for an American supplier and Barrett's MRAD entry wouild have been a VERY close second and MUCH better than the "winner". The DTA is lots simpler to maintain than the Remington/Cadex/Surefire product and the Barrett bolt is as slick as snot on a doorknob.

Seems like foreign militaries like the DTA and Barrett rifles, and AI holds the prize for most chosen PSR by other militaries. That tell you sumpin'??

But hey, that's politics. What we got was "notta too bad" but it could have been better.
Click to expand...


I pulled up the Solicitation on fedbizops and looked at the vendor list as well as the requirements documentation. What part or parts do you have issue with? I am assuming the collapsible/adjustable but stock and the required rail system at the clock positions for the length of the fore end?

As a general observation/comment: I don't recall seeing DTA on the interested vendor list but I also didn't see AI, surgeon or Sako so it may have been pursued through one of the 37 companies on the list that I am not familiar with. And its also quiet possible that the list isn't complete.
 
#94
SOCOM PSR solicitation changes

>In talks with company personnel of two of the companies (one U.S., one foreign) submitting rifles for this solitication I was told that SOCOM changed the requirements and they pulled out of the competition due to this. The foreign company man said they felt it was specifically re-written "tighter" to eliminate most foreign competitors. They said that it may be a blessing given the large contracts they had to fulfill for other nations.

>The other company rep would not go into detail except to say that the higher initial cost of their rifle "may have been a factor". I cannot name companies (as both reps requested) but will say one is just north of me.

>And I have printouts of the SOCOM solicitation with all requirements so I'm thoroughly familiar with them and their "go-no go" tolerance and failure standards.

>I have before and since the trails shot rifles essentially the the same as the versions they submitted but, of course, not the Remingson Defense rifle.

Therefore I am not talking out my ass, as has been broadly "hinted" above.
 
#95
Eric B. said:
>In talks with company personnel of two of the companies (one U.S., one foreign) submitting rifles for this solitication I was told that SOCOM changed the requirements and they pulled out of the competition due to this. The foreign company man said they felt it was specifically re-written "tighter" to eliminate most foreign competitors. They said that it may be a blessing given the large contracts they had to fulfill for other nations.
Click to expand...

There were approx 10 change documents for the latest and final go round but there were also 8 sets of Q&A documents from the vendors. Often times those changes are driven by the vendor Q&A's to make the requirements clearer. In quickly looking at 2 different versions of the requirements document, I didn't pick up on any thing major that would lead me to believe it was re-written to eliminate anyone persay. I did notice a change in weight from 18lbs to 17lbs and a 2" change in overall length and the full rail system. Not saying there wern't more changes, I'm sure there were, but if you know of something specific that was added/removed that made it harder for foreign companies to compete please list what it was.

>The other company rep would not go into detail except to say that the higher initial cost of their rifle "may have been a factor". I cannot name companies (as both reps requested) but will say one is just north of me.
Click to expand...

Thats just business and the nature of contracting. I know they were given a chance to present their final cost/budget and if they were the highest dollar amount of those downselected that met the requirments then that is very often the case why a company doesn't get a contract and often times, it is usually what people consider a superior product. When you have good, better and best and they all meet the requirments, good is usually always less expensive than best.

>And I have printouts of the SOCOM solicitation with all requirements so I'm thoroughly familiar with them and their "go-no go" tolerance and failure standards.
Click to expand...

So what part of the solicitation/requirements do you have issue with?
 
#96
You guys that have "issues" with this have obviously never done government contracting. I sucks just as much for us (the government) as it does for the vendors. And the word "innovative" is almost never a selling point for the government because of the expense and relative amounts of unknowns. And PZ3 is right on, the requirements were amended due to vendor RFI's (requests for information) which is a normal part of the contract award process. There are no big mysteries here, you guys just need to get out of your bomb shelters once in a while.
 
#97
cal50 said:
Reading some of the replies makes me wonder how Carlos Hathcock survived with his meager rife & Redfield scope back in the day.

Top notch equipment is great but a lot of the success is the operator.
If only Carlos had a. 338.........
Click to expand...

I alway wandered that too. How much better could Carlos been if he would have had some of the calibers and rifles that they have now a days. Sorry not trying to get off topic.
 
#99
McCrazy said:
$15,000 may sound like a lot when you are used to popping $4000-$5000 on a custom rifle. When the military receives these rifles it is a whole lot more than just a rifle. It is rifle, sling, suppressor, bipods, 10 magazines (approximately), magazine pouches, cleaning kit, cleaning rod, lube, soft case, hard case, rings, scope, scope base, lens covers, sometimes a clip on night vision device, soft case, hard case, tool kit, and numerous other things. This rifle is for multiple calibers so add multiple barrels and probably a bunch more magazines. Is it overpriced still? Maybe, but the manufacturer is going to need a profit one way or the other, and the purchase price also covers free and complete maintenance for however many years specified in the contract.

There are a ton of ways your taxpayer dollars are wasted by the military and the government. This sniper rifle is about the least meaningful to concern yourself over.
Click to expand...

Finally, a response that reflects the reality of the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Defender3
SOLD Schmidt Bender SOCOM PSR PM II
Replies
24
Views
1K
VaderRubiconJK
VaderRubiconJK
B
SOLD SOLD --- Springfield Armory M1A Socom --- Like New ---SOLD
Replies
2
Views
341
Bungi
B
RWSGunsmithing
SOLD Remington M24A2 Sniper Rifle
Replies
9
Views
2K
RWSGunsmithing
RWSGunsmithing
S
Secret Service Wants New Rifles
Replies
67
Views
3K
notacos4u
notacos4u
StocknRock
Prs rifles beginner/budget and if the remington 700 is worth getting off the shelf in 2024?
Replies
78
Views
5K
EscapeVelocity
EscapeVelocity
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts