• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more

  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Rifle Scopes Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

#51
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JamesBailey</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If this contract is for 11,000 scopes, to what extend was the bidder's capability to manufacture that many scopes within a limited time-frame considered?

USO is a small company - could they manufacture that many scopes and do anything else but make PSR scopes?

</div></div>
Schimdt und Bender is a small outfit to. Perhaps they will share some of the workload with other companies. I just hope that from this contract that they don't move nonmilitary contract work to the Eastern Euro S&B facility.
 
#52
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tiger222</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm very happy for S&B, congrats. What ever happened to the "best man getting the job" guys? If the S&B works the best for our fighting men, then more power too them. Just like with the USMC IAR M27 (HK416), if it kicks a$$, and brings them home safer, faster, and ALIVE why not? And they are our staunch ally. It's not like it went to NC Star! </div></div>

+1

I couldn't agree with you more.
 
#53
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lrs50bmg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as the Navy requesting the 1/4 MOA turrets with the H2CMR Reticle........ it is probably mostly just inertia. They have been teaching the use of the Mil reticle for range estimation, using yards for distance 1/4MOA adjustments for so long (since the 80's), I think they were just leary of changing... This would not be my choice, but they didn't ask my opinion... at least on this issue..
wink.gif


I would have picked one or the other...and probably just gone with the whole metric system, even though I have been doing it their way for the past 20 years.

At the last class they did try using the NF 5.5-22X56 with the NP-R1 reticle on the Mk13 instead of the mil-dot, but I guess there is still too much disagreement to switch to a consistent all Yard/MOA/MOA or Meter/Mil/Mil system... At least they are getting some great glass, and with the time I did have behind the H2CMR reticle, I like the finer holds available. </div></div>

Mils/MRAD != metric
 
#54
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

When it comes to US economy and buying american we have another part of that discussion and that is the US export part.
Its nearly freaking impossible to get a lot of stuff from the US cause your exportregulations are so weird.

Not only the exporter must pay redicoulus sums to the government to be allowed to export but also the producers.
That means a lot of products that have mainly a civlian use cannot be obtained outside of the US.

So when I chose calibers, I prefer calibers where I have a european bullet/brass supply cause that will give a certain supply instead of never knowing if I can get what I need.

The problems for this rubbish is in the US, who have one of the weirdest exportregulations in existence.

To me it's funny to see how some groups over the years have got a lot of free guns like the talibans, when european hunters and sportshooters not even can buy it, without a lot of hassle.
So my only impression of this is that the US doesent need the money they could get.

Håkan
 
#55
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When it comes to US economy and buying american we have another part of that discussion and that is the US export part.
Its nearly freaking impossible to get a lot of stuff from the US cause your exportregulations are so weird.

Not only the exporter must pay redicoulus sums to the government to be allowed to export but also the producers.
That means a lot of products that have mainly a civlian use cannot be obtained outside of the US.

So when I chose calibers, I prefer calibers where I have a european bullet/brass supply cause that will give a certain supply instead of never knowing if I can get what I need.

The problems for this rubbish is in the US, who have one of the weirdest exportregulations in existence.

To me it's funny to see how some groups over the years have got a lot of free guns like the talibans, when european hunters and sportshooters not even can buy it, without a lot of hassle.
So my only impression of this is that the US doesent need the money they could get.

Håkan </div></div>

The US does need the money, and the work, badly. Our government officials are just too stupid to realize their policies are what is killing our economy. This is a perfect example of that.

-SBS
 
#56
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

For what it’s worth the USO submission was an outstanding effort by JWIII and the guys there. I personally used both pieces of glass and neither really had any marked advantage over the other and they both had to pay the ridiculous license fee for the rights to use the tactical tennis racket. It also wasn’t about cost either as they were both comparable.

The actual ceiling at this point is supposed to be 8,000 units during the 5yr ID/IQ and with the USSOCOM PSR solicitation being stood up again in Aug. (supposedly) it will give the Big Army and the USMC a chance to see who fixed what and how to write their own actual solicitation or piggyback.

now the contract is signed and the S&B PSR glass will be fielded before the actual weapon is choosen and will be replacing glass that is seen as sub-standard or inadequate on current platforms delivered under recent contracts that were not what certain units actually wanted.

The contract will be "X" amount per month based on the entity within USSOCOM's requirement (i.e. Navy orders XX qty in April) and USO could have easily made the delivery schedule.

Since there was no actual PSR platform the testing was performed on MK13's. The USO was passed over relative to a dimension aspect…… not quality. This dimensional aspect, could have been easily been addressed by USO and I'm sure it will be for the Big Army solicitation since I know USO is a definite candidate for some of the weapons manufacturer componentization (weapon, optic, mounting solution, suppressor, all ancillary components) so USO is not out of the running.

Both companies make solid products, as do some of the companies that submitted. Some were plagued by price some were plagued by technical aspects and some felt the contract was simply not big enough.

At the end of it all USO didn’t lose because it was a sub-standard product or was too expensive, actually they were never tested head to head.

Regardless give the warfighter the tools required for operational success period. Failure to successfully engage a target based on substandard kit or what certain entities ram down parts of SOCOM’s throat is totally unacceptable but hey its all about the buck and the real big money contracts screw the end user.

Just a nobodies 2 cents

And Spur while I’m sure there is some sort of relative meaning to your post, would S&B not have to obtain approval from the German MoD to export to even Sweden? Doesn’t HK have to do the same? And is that approval FOC?
Your products could be manufactured here could they not?
 
#58
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lrs50bmg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as the Navy requesting the 1/4 MOA turrets with the H2CMR Reticle........ it is probably mostly just inertia. They have been teaching the use of the Mil reticle for range estimation, using yards for distance 1/4MOA adjustments for so long (since the 80's), I think they were just leary of changing... This would not be my choice, but they didn't ask my opinion... at least on this issue..
wink.gif


I would have picked one or the other...and probably just gone with the whole metric system, even though I have been doing it their way for the past 20 years.

At the last class they did try using the NF 5.5-22X56 with the NP-R1 reticle on the Mk13 instead of the mil-dot, but I guess there is still too much disagreement to switch to a consistent all Yard/MOA/MOA or Meter/Mil/Mil system... At least they are getting some great glass, and with the time I did have behind the H2CMR reticle, I like the finer holds available. </div></div>

Mils/MRAD != metric </div></div>
NO, A mil has nothing to do with the metric system. A mil is 1/1000's of any kind of measurement system. It works with inches, yards, hell even light years!
 
#59
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: billyburl2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lrs50bmg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as the Navy requesting the 1/4 MOA turrets with the H2CMR Reticle........ it is probably mostly just inertia. They have been teaching the use of the Mil reticle for range estimation, using yards for distance 1/4MOA adjustments for so long (since the 80's), I think they were just leary of changing... This would not be my choice, but they didn't ask my opinion... at least on this issue..
wink.gif


I would have picked one or the other...and probably just gone with the whole metric system, even though I have been doing it their way for the past 20 years.

At the last class they did try using the NF 5.5-22X56 with the NP-R1 reticle on the Mk13 instead of the mil-dot, but I guess there is still too much disagreement to switch to a consistent all Yard/MOA/MOA or Meter/Mil/Mil system... At least they are getting some great glass, and with the time I did have behind the H2CMR reticle, I like the finer holds available. </div></div>

Mils/MRAD != metric </div></div>
NO, A mil has nothing to do with the metric system. A mil is 1/1000's of any kind of measurement system. It works with inches, yards, hell even light years! </div></div>

You apparently need to look up what "!=" means. lol.
 
#61
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: OPS2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For what it’s worth the USO submission was an outstanding effort by JWIII and the guys there. I personally used both pieces of glass and neither really had any marked advantage over the other and they both had to pay the ridiculous license fee for the rights to use the tactical tennis racket. It also wasn’t about cost either as they were both comparable.
</div></div>

Great post OPS2. thanks
 
#62
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

In the end S&B won. It can get spun anyway anyone likes so that no one feels bad about not getting it but the fact is S&B won. The standards and benchmarks were set and obviously S&B met and exceeded them while the other scopes did not. But hey it was only for USSOCOM and a meesly little $34 million right so not a big deal.
laugh.gif


Honestly is there anyone in here who would not want to go to war or even the local range with that S&B PSR scope on their rifle?
 
#63
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr Scholl</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why a Horus reticle in the Army scope? Great googly moogly. </div></div>

Because the data collected by each shooter is easily shared by PDA, so the shooters and spotters can exchange data, even when teams are mixed and matched or a new team member arrives. For the Mil it makes perfect sense.
 
#64
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

Thanks James

Rob01 is exactly right S&B won the selection based on merit and meeting the thresholds and objectives put forth. there will always be a loser.

My point is it’s not fair to USO (or Leupold for that matter) for there to be an assumption that they cannot and do not produce the same quality glass as the S&B, Zeiss, NF etc based on this solicitation. Nor that the US cannot produce the same quality as those OCONUS. I.E. do you really believe the HK 416 is so superior to say the LMT MWS??

I’m not saying the guys at USO get it right 100% of the time but that goes for ALL manufacturing period. And yes I not only manufacture products for John (as I do for S&B FN SIG HK etc) but we are friends. I'm not even saying that USO makes the best of everything. I'm saying I respect where John, Arnold, Nick and the rest have taken the company even after the unfortunate passing of John’s dad.

Is the S&B PMII a very good piece of glass..... Damn right and they worked hard to meet the requirement so they do deserve congratulations and should be able to enjoy the win. I'm in no way shape or form trying to say anything different and both companies are well aware of my working relationships with the other (not always easy)

For those who want to say the in today’s economy that a 34mil contact from SOCOM who had nearly a 50% budget cut is really nothing ...... wow all I can say is I'd love to see your P&L because you obviously don’t need any cash flow and have more than enough money to conduct R&D on top of your production which must also be a capacity. Also a company in that position would have absolutely no problems funding the development of basically anything that came across FBO in a most expeditious manner FFP or not.

And for those who ask the, Horus (TTR) is the Holy Grail within certain aspects of SOCOM. We all have opinions, for me however looking for your splash at 1500meters in heavy defilade in less than adequate light after pulling the hook on a .338 after recoil??? Ever try it in perfect conditions at say 500? Get it 100%? 80%? that being said there are numerous operators that have outstanding success with it, just dont think is for everyone.

But hey adding say $400.00 to the price of the glass for the right to use the reticle now that’s a great business plan.

But again simply a nobodies opinion.
 
#65
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Mils/MRAD != metric</div></div>

Actually if you consider that metric is simply a 10(decimal)based system of math.... Mils, MRAD.... all 10 based math.... was my only point. Yes, unit of angle, but relates to the unit of length on the basis of 10.

Sorry for simplifying.
 
#66
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

I will take it a step further - Winning a contract with any part of the Federal government means nothing to me + or -.
I own two S&B scopes.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: OPS2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks James

Rob01 is exactly right S&B won the selection based on merit and meeting the thresholds and objectives put forth. there will always be a loser.

My point is it’s not fair to USO (or Leupold for that matter) for there to be an assumption that they cannot and do not produce the same quality glass as the S&B, Zeiss, NF etc based on this solicitation. Nor that the US cannot produce the same quality as those OCONUS. I.E. do you really believe the HK 416 is so superior to say the LMT MWS??
</div></div>

medium.jpg
 
#69
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: OPS2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yes they did have a submission but fell short kinda early. </div></div>

Was it due to MAP?
 
#70
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: OPS2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yes they did have a submission but fell short kinda early. </div></div>

Was it due to MAP? </div></div>


Nope, it was Nunya that did it....
 
#71
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guys this was a contract under the buy American Clause, but there are a handful of countries which are exempt, these are our closest allies and consists of:

Australia
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Federal Republic of Germany
Finland
France
Greece
Israel
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
<span style="color: #FF0000">Nunya</span>
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

</div></div>
Fixed it!
grin.gif
 
#74
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

bbw, now THAT's an impressive number on AC bills...

the $34.2 million for scopes pales in comparison, I wonder how much other seemingly pedestrian, "low key" bills (not directly related to combat equipment), add up to.
 
#75
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When it comes to US economy and buying american we have another part of that discussion and that is the US export part.
Its nearly freaking impossible to get a lot of stuff from the US cause your exportregulations are so weird.

Not only the exporter must pay redicoulus sums to the government to be allowed to export but also the producers.
That means a lot of products that have mainly a civlian use cannot be obtained outside of the US.

So when I chose calibers, I prefer calibers where I have a european bullet/brass supply cause that will give a certain supply instead of never knowing if I can get what I need.

The problems for this rubbish is in the US, who have one of the weirdest exportregulations in existence.

To me it's funny to see how some groups over the years have got a lot of free guns like the talibans, when european hunters and sportshooters not even can buy it, without a lot of hassle.
So my only impression of this is that the US doesent need the money they could get.

Håkan </div></div>

Totally agree, I also make an effort only to buy European as I can't be sure to get US gear.
 
#76
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division has a requirement to procure Dayscopes, non-warranty test teardown evaluation and repair and provision item order (PIO) spares for the Dayscopes. The different Dayscopes to be procured will provide a 0.25 MOA and .1mr windage and elevation adjustment, both with an illuminated reticle located in the first focal plane. Dayscopes shall have a magnification range within a bound of 3.5-26x. Individual and one piece mounting rings will be procured with the Dayscopes with ring heights ranging from 1-1.5 inches. Each Dayscope shall include lens covers, windage and elevation caps, operator’s manual, reticle battery, mounting rings and any associated tools.
 
#78
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

I've heard that Counter-Sniper has a government contract. Not sure if they were in on this one, however. In fact, I think if you hurry, you can pick up a contract overrun scope for a great deal.
 
#79
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've heard that Counter-Sniper has a government contract. Not sure if they were in on this one, however. In fact, I think if you hurry, you can pick up a contract overrun scope for a great deal. </div></div>

They have a contract for a survival scope.

The whole idea is that when it's needed it will be able to kill ants, using sunlight, for valuable protein.
 
#80
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bbw</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
$34.2 Million? While not on the level of super-huge contracts, that's nothing to sneeze at... </div></div>

You can get a sneeze out of AC too...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9525000/9525737.stm </div></div>

That is a lot of money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
#81
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: banshee sws</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if someone knows , word is five companies made submissions -

filling in the blanks here -

1. schmidt bender (awarded )
2. leupold ?
3. USO ?
4. ?
5. ?

earlier posts in this thread claim NIGHTFORCE did NOT submit?

thanks </div></div>


Premier Reticles had a submission.
 
#82
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

Good choice for the PSR Contract, but honestly, this doesn't really apply to anyone out here on these forums except for a few who do fall under SOCOM. Kinda pointless to arm chair quarterback the who submitted and etc because the vast majority of people here have no direct command relationship with SOCOM. A reason behind the Navy pushing for 1/4 MOA turrets could simply because someone is making decisions that shouldn't be or simply feedback from the end users has not been collected or ignored. It's been a problem over the years in regards to the procurement of scopes (SFP scopes), but in regards to the Army selection there's been quite a push for MRAD and Horus within Army SOF and there are some guys in the decision process who do have that experience to know and listen to what the guys want.
 
#83
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: OPS2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yes they did have a submission but fell short kinda early. </div></div>

Can you elaborate on this a little more? Kinda curious as to why they fell out early?

-SBS
 
#84
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

It would have been nice for a U.S.-based company to have one the contract, but I'm sure our allies gripe about having to buy American armaments sometimes. Leupold won out in the 1-8X battle.
 
#85
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

just so we all know what really happened. USO was the pick but lost out cuz their scope was approx 1" too long...even though it still worked with the NV scope.

S&B just isn't as good of scope. Politics also played into it.
 
#87
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">just so we all know what really happened. USO was the pick but lost out cuz their scope was approx 1" too long...even though it still worked with the NV scope.

S&B just isn't as good of scope. Politics also played into it. </div></div>

Can I get some cheese with that whine?
wink.gif


S&B isn't as good of a scope? LOL That made my night! After having about a half dozen of each there is no comparison but just not the way you see it.

You know what really amazes me? I went back and looked at some other threads with companies like Premier when they got the USMC Contract and it was nothing but "good jobs" and "congrats" but in this thread there are some of that but alot of how should I say it, complaining. Anyone want to venture a guess as to why? Just because S&B aren't a US company? Premier was using S&B scopes. Some other reason? Just trying to figure out all the animosity.
 
#88
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">leupold and premier were out of the running almost from the start. </div></div>

Can someone tell me why? Would like to know why they were out so early?
 
#89
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">just so we all know what really happened. USO was the pick but lost out cuz their scope was approx 1" too long...even though it still worked with the NV scope.

S&B just isn't as good of scope. Politics also played into it. </div></div>
Was the pick but lost out isn't exactly a "pick" is it? Unless you have some hard facts you are going to draw undeserved fire on to USO! Be a good sport and congradulate the winner and let it go at that!
 
#90
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">just so we all know what really happened. USO was the pick but lost out cuz their scope was approx 1" too long...even though it still worked with the NV scope.

<span style="color: #CC0000">S&B just isn't as good of scope.</span> Politics also played into it. </div></div>


I own both S&B and US Optics and I certainly don't see it the way that you do.
 
#92
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

I just did. the only reason uso didn't get it was because their submission was 1" too long. That's it. Otherwise s&B was out. Simple.


S*B blows -

1. knobs are weak internals
2. the FOV is way to small
3. the reticle lines are huge and block up to much of the sight picture.
4. gripping the W&E knobs sucks.
5. the lit reticle knob placement sucks
6. the finish is to reflective (can be fixed by paint)
7. the gripping surface of the power adjustment ring sucks.


what S&B has going for it.

1. good glass
2. good on seeing green colors but falls short on others.
3. good low light.
4. nice clicks - they can thank USO for letting them use the MTC knob.


S&B is great for the weekend warrior. It could be improved in many areas for the military...on a two way range.
 
#93
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just did. the only reason uso didn't get it was because their submission was 1" too long. That's it. Otherwise s&B was out. Simple.


S*B blows -

1. knobs are weak internals
2. the FOV is way to small
3. the reticle lines are huge and block up to much of the sight picture.
4. gripping the W&E knobs sucks.
5. the lit reticle knob placement sucks
6. the finish is to reflective (can be fixed by paint)
7. the gripping surface of the power adjustment ring sucks.


what S&B has going for it.

1. good glass
2. good on seeing green colors but falls short on others.
3. good low light.
4. nice clicks - they can thank USO for letting them use the MTC knob.


S&B is great for the weekend warrior. It could be improved in many areas for the military...on a two way range.</div></div>


Wow. Some serious sour grapes huh?

1. S&B internals are steel and very tough and unlike some others actually track correctly. You want me to go into details on the number of scopes I have gotten from another company that didn't track even after getting sent back? Maybe USSOCOM didn't have time to package up their new scopes to get them fixed.

2. FOV is plenty big on the S&B. The tunneling is a well documented bitch by many. Old news.

3. So a Horus reticle in one scope covers more than in another?

4. Persoanl preference. I actually like the dual turn S&B knob better than the EREK. The S&B is easy to zero, has an actual zero stop and nice crisp clicks.

5. For lefties yes it does and it's being worked on to put it in the parallax knob. For right handed shooters it's just another knob.

6. Obviously it will be painted so not really an issue.

7. Again personal preference. I have no problem reaching up and turning the power knob even with gloves on.

Guess all those other countries militaries who are using the S&B scopes and have for years are weekend warriors huh? Spare me the high and mighty operator talk speaking down to us "weekend warriors". S&B scopes have a well deserved and well earned reputation as being one of the best scopes in the world in either military or civilian hands. Sorry that upsets you so much.

Spread the BS somewhere else.

spreading%20manure_small.jpg
 
#94
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

sour grapes - I think not. I made these observations years ago and nothing has changed.

1. I don't care what you do

2. the FOV sucks for a 2 way range. IMO of course. The fact of the matter is that more FOV on the battle field is better. Not required ...but it is better.

3. with less fov it doesn't help
smile.gif
horus is a joke of a reticle...at least for battlefield. It just covers up sooo much of the sight picture. For BR it's good. IMO of course.

4. the erek can be ordered with a zero stop. so what. I bet you wouldn't say that if it were raining or you had sweaty hands. The scallop erek is far superior to use in a bad situation. It's simply easier to grip.

4a - the double turn sticks up like a top hat in a crowd of bald headed men.

5. it gets in the way of putting anything else like a cant indicator or bubble level.

7. USO has more gripping surface area, a better texture to grip and far easier to turn. So it's better. IMO

Can you lay off with the snide comments and assumptions please.
 
#95
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

How many <span style="font-weight: bold">sniper</span> scopes has USO on the field, with USA, NATO or other first world .mil user?

Have they won any military contract for <span style="font-weight: bold">SNIPER</span> scopes yet?

I remember they lost the USMC sniper day scope contract to S&B, same the canadian contract, now the PSR contract...

And OTOH S&B scopes are probably the most used sniper scopes worlwide, for first world .mil users (other than USA) with deep pockets. The other top end competitor for sniper scopes (outside USA) is Hensoldt = ZEISS, say no more for anyone that has a clue about optical stuff.

USO is a small operation, with no large (or even small??) military contracts for sniper scopes, and thus no track record for these contracts (how well the large number of contract scopes are vs the massaged trial ones, on time delivery of large numbers, maintenance, etc.).

S&B is a much more established brand, with a looong list of satisfied users and a great reputation. They have been around for long, and have a good financial status that one hopes will keep them alive for long.

The much vaunted "customization" that is available via USO is due to their small size (and a source of troubles and confusion), and worth nothing in large contracts.

Sure, it is just politics you say...
cry.gif


I have NOTHING against USO, probably great scopes, but S&B really has a lot going for them in a military contract, other than the great quality of their scopes.

And, while interesting, I take all comments here about "X brand lost early, or Y brand was better but longer" like blah, blah... if they are not coming out of the horse's mouth. So far I know that S&B has won yet another important contract in an open competition with some of the best in the business.
 
#96
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Can you lay off with the snide comments and assumptions please. </div></div>

So you're calling Rob black?
 
#98
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

If a company submitted a scope that was not exactly to the specs of the test then the scope was disqualified as soon as the box was open.

If you want to win a contract you really need to submit what the purchaser is requesting and to their specs in order to even have a chance to win.

So shame on them for not submitting a proper scope!!

Tracking, repeatability, clarity, and reliability are also a must have when lifes our on the line.

To be honest it doesnt matter what any of us think, want, or know. The facts are we are not purchasing the scopes and the guys really doing the jop have made a request for what they need and set the parameters!!

The best of the bunch won!! Everyone else can go back to the drawing board and try again next time!
 
#99
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Can you lay off with the snide comments and assumptions please. </div></div>

You mean like saying S&B are great for weekend warriors?

I made my observation years ago when I went to S&B in 2006 after having other scope troubles and have never regretted it and also never had anymore problems or had to send a scope back.

Tiro pretty much covered it.

Do you guys Honestly know what I would have said in this thread if it was USO that won the contract? I would say congrats to John and his crew and leave it at that because honestly I would have been happy for them. John is a great guy and I like him alot and wish him nothing but the best with his business and personal life. I wouldn't come in here whining and crying politics etc, etc and making a big stink pile out of a congrats thread to a company that won a good contract. It doesn't make the winning company look bad.


 
#100
Re: Schmidt & Bender Awarded the PSR Contract

rob

no like - "some serious sour grapes" , "spare me the high and mighty operator talk speaking down to us weekend warriors" , and "spread the bs somewhere else".


as for the rest of your post - I seriously doubt that. You are on SH on almost a daily basis pumping S&B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Schmidt Bender Price Reduction
Replies
32
Views
1K
gearguywb
G
N
Schmidt & Bender PMII Throw Lever Suggestions
Replies
6
Views
180
375fan
3
Night Vision Viking
Review: Schmidt & Bender 3-20×50 PM II Ultra Short Riflescope (C20 Model)
Replies
9
Views
845
GBMaryland
GBMaryland
PR308
New Smart Scope From Schmidt & Bender
Replies
12
Views
1K
KYAggie
KYAggie
RC556
SOLD NSN Marked Schmidt & Bender
Replies
2
Views
937
RC556
RC556
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts