- Thread starter DavidK
- Start date
Lot of different companies,
They just submitted last month, everything / everyone from AI to Barrett, to even I believe KRG with a Bighorn build
They just submitted last month, everything / everyone from AI to Barrett, to even I believe KRG with a Bighorn build
Thanks LL,
I am working on an article on one of the rifles that is being submitted. My editor asked if I can find out who else is submitting. Can you be more specific as to "everyone" is?
I am working on an article on one of the rifles that is being submitted. My editor asked if I can find out who else is submitting. Can you be more specific as to "everyone" is?
Hi,
@DavidK
Why not just go straight to the source. Contact these people with a FOIA request. This is public information from FBO.Gov
Primary Point of Contact.:
John E. Helfert,
Contract Specialist
[email protected]
Phone: 8138264581
Secondary Point of Contact:
Indira R. Phillips,
Contracting Officer
[email protected]
Phone: 8138260320
Sincerely,
Theis
@DavidK
Why not just go straight to the source. Contact these people with a FOIA request. This is public information from FBO.Gov
Primary Point of Contact.:
John E. Helfert,
Contract Specialist
[email protected]
Phone: 8138264581
Secondary Point of Contact:
Indira R. Phillips,
Contracting Officer
[email protected]
Phone: 8138260320
Sincerely,
Theis
Do we know the requirements or standards these rifles need to meet?
Thanks for the suggestion. I will research how to do that.
Check: http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/1...rces-sought-notice-for-advanced-sniper-rifle/
I am curious why they only seek 1.5 MOA from the 338, unless thats a typo.
Honestly, because I have been traveling so much, I was only in tune with what AI is doing, as they have a thing happening next month
The one to ask about the bigger list of companies is Ray from ThunderBeast as they have been on top of this pretty hardcore and since companies are submitting a suppressor with it, he would know who is out there as they try to submit on as many rifles as possible
The one to ask about the bigger list of companies is Ray from ThunderBeast as they have been on top of this pretty hardcore and since companies are submitting a suppressor with it, he would know who is out there as they try to submit on as many rifles as possible
Primary Point of Contact.:
John E. Helfert,
Contract Specialist
[email protected]
Phone: 8138264581
Secondary Point of Contact:
Indira R. Phillips,
Contracting Officer
[email protected]
Phone: 8138260320
I emailed both contacts and received a Permanent deliver failure on both of them... curious
John E. Helfert,
Contract Specialist
[email protected]
Phone: 8138264581
Secondary Point of Contact:
Indira R. Phillips,
Contracting Officer
[email protected]
Phone: 8138260320
I emailed both contacts and received a Permanent deliver failure on both of them... curious
Hmm so apparently the PSR prototypes used Bartlein blanks and were g2g. Once they went into full production, Remington started putting their own in-house made barrels on them and the accuracy wasn't up to snuff.
If AI got it with 300 NM AND 338NM with a TBAC can that would be freakin awesome. They should add 6.5cm or .260 rem as well
Lots of back scratching goes on with these contracts as we all know........hopefully they award it to the best platforms and not their "buddies".............
Lots of back scratching goes on with these contracts as we all know........hopefully they award it to the best platforms and not their "buddies".............
Hi,
Do you know of any time that has ever happened lolol?
They will continue to "revise" the requirements, specifically the delivery quantity and delivery timelines until only the company they "want" to deal with is able to meet those requirements.
Sincerely,
Theis
I will be very interested in what AI comes up with, as last go around they put out the PSR which eventually became the AXMC / AX
I don't think AI will have any problem with the Optimal requirement for 0.5 MOA on the 7.62mm and .300 Norma and the 1.5 MOA for .338LM
But I would be very interested to see what they come up with to hit the optimal weight of 13 pounds. Perhaps there will be some spin off on this of lighter weight chassis part options for the AXMC class (or replacement) once they get done.
Idk.. it looks like they gave the PSR contract to their buddies and now it came back to bite em in the ass... maybe(hopefully) they'll learn from that..?
Maybe I misread, but I saw 17 lbs in the link above. Iirc, wasn’t the PSR that same weight.
On another note, is the PSR contract done, or vacated in some way? Seem more logical to just solicit bids to fix the PSR’s than go from square 1. Basically they need complete barrels (barrel extensions?), suppressors, and maybe magazines for the Norma(which they may already have).
The request said 17 pounds was the maximum allowed weight but 13 pounds is the optimum weight.
My guess would be everybody tries to see if they can hit the optimum if possible to better their chances?
Copy, thx.
I'm curious about this whole thing too. Are they looking for optimal weight with a cartridge that reaches a standard accuracy/distance or reaching out farther?
An item of note, the Army spec ops has "adopted" or "allowed" the use of the 6.5 Creedmoor. I wonder if this is in response to that decision?
An item of note, the Army spec ops has "adopted" or "allowed" the use of the 6.5 Creedmoor. I wonder if this is in response to that decision?
Did an internet search and came up with this: http://soldiersystems.net/2018/05/07/ussocom-releases-advanced-sniper-rifle-solicitation/
The rifle will be chambered in 7.62×51 mm NATO, .300 Norma Magnum, and .338 Norma Magnum with caliber conversions occurring at the user level. The program is also a total small business set aside.
The rifle will be chambered in 7.62×51 mm NATO, .300 Norma Magnum, and .338 Norma Magnum with caliber conversions occurring at the user level. The program is also a total small business set aside.
Sounds like somebody doesn't like the 6.5 Creedmoor. Wonder why they still wanna fuck around with the 7.62x51?
For those asking, from everything I've read yes the PSR Remington contract has been cancelled/dissolved. Accuracy wasn't up to snuff once they moved to main line production and started putting Remington-produced barrels on em
Wasn’t the PSR contract something like 80 million bucks? There’s got to be some liability on Remington’s part.
Leave it to Remington to fuck up something good....
LOL I think 79.4 to be exact... somewhere around there
I'm kind of confused. Did Remington lose the main PSR contract entirely or is this solicitation for something else?
Hi,
The PSR contract was cancelled/pulled due to vendor not meeting agreed upon and awarded terms.
The ASR is pretty much nothing more than a new PSR solicitation with the major change being Norma Magnums are required cartridges.
With the fielding of General Dynamics NM machine guns....at least they are thinking ahead in regards to commonality of ammunition
Sincerely,
Theis
The PSR contract was cancelled/pulled due to vendor not meeting agreed upon and awarded terms.
The ASR is pretty much nothing more than a new PSR solicitation with the major change being Norma Magnums are required cartridges.
With the fielding of General Dynamics NM machine guns....at least they are thinking ahead in regards to commonality of ammunition
Sincerely,
Theis
I agree with you, but I'm 100% sure Ranger SW knows that.
as to the contract, I would like to see them drop the top side weight and force weight restrictions, especially with heavier ammo.
I'm also not a huge fan of field swappable calibers. I now guys from Big Army who were rotating around a M14 DMR with no fucking windage knob. They drew it over the M110 because it would at least function. I know, apples to oranges when it comes to a Bolt action BUT the mindset of those that make guys roll out the wire with a pile of shit is not.
For Tip if the Spear guys, fine but they have a grab bag of shit to choose from already(unless things have gotten bad like the early 90s again). Regular Army Guys that don't have time to rezero a weapon , none the less swap a caliber and then confirm dope, what will they gain from this? I think it's a pipe dream. Maybe this is never meant to filter down?
Not sure about others, but AI's RTZ reliably when barrels are swapped.
Is AI subject to different pricing because they're not based in the US? For other government contracts, products from other countries are disadvantaged because whichever price they say they can do it for, the government treats it like 20% more or whichever percentage it is. So since AI is based in the UK, if they said they can supply it for $10,000 a unit, the government calculates it as $12,000 to give an advantage to American companies.
Hence why I suspect AI created AINA. It opens a lot of previously closed business, assuming an SSA (Special Security Agreement) and all other things have been filed.
Obviously I would always prefer American made to be in the hands of our troops but AI is tough to compete with.
It's all good until you've got a hundred cans of 7.62 and no way to use it because someone lost the 12mm bolt head....just sayin.
I would agree though, that from what I've heard over the years, this contract is a huge thing money-wise. Supporting it in the field is another. Scopes go down, no replacement. A stupid thing like a replaceable bolt head doesn't happen because it went into someones pocket instead of back in the case. Or, it fell out of the case. I can see swapping calibers at a firebase, but not out in the field. Too easy to get too much lost.
Back to the scopes, we've got thousands invested in this, yet I hear from guys it's a total rundown of what you can't do with the rifle when it's issued to a new shooter because the scope won't adjust anymore. This is before we even throw all that electronic night vision crap on there.
One last parting shot on Remington, it's time they figure out that hammer forged barrels are not the best choice for accuracy. They act like it still is. It leaves too many stresses in the barrel that show up when it gets hot. Cut-rifled would be preferable, but they are slow to make. The best "production" barrel for holding accuracy is button rifled. You can make them fast and they are accurate. They hold it well over time as the work done to the metal hardens the inside of the barrel. We could go further with that and use industrial hardening techniques like meloniting. Seems like we can do it out here in the civilian world but not the military.
As to the 6.5 Creed, I could give a fuck about PRS. That round kills just fine. And it can do it a lot farther out than the 7.62. It also weighs less than a standard M80 and substantially less than M118. People get all enamored with "magnum power", while totally disregarding bullet efficiency. Stupidest thing I've ever seen is a single barrel magnum machine gun. Some fuckweed in the pentagon has obviously never shot a machine gun much and doesn't know that even with 7.62 you have to change barrels a lot. Absolutely retarded going to .300NM for a machine gun. Watch 'em break left and right in the field.
@sandwarrior i can’t imagine a shooter dragging 3 barrels bolts and everything else on a mission. I agree the caliber swaps should be reserved for the FOB. User changeability makes it more efficient without having to depend on someone else having enough time to get to it when the mission suddenly changes and a 338 is no longer appropriate but a 300 is. Personally, I don’t want to rely on others if I don’t have to for anything.
Hi,
The devil is in the details....as previously noted the ASR in its' CURRENT form is a total set aside for small business.
Well lets see how long that last because here are the details for just that mandate:
The U.S. Small Business Administration counts companies with as much as $35.5 million in sales and up to 1,500 employees as "small businesses" in regards to Government contracts.
Outside government, companies with less than $7 million in sales and fewer than five hundred employees are widely considered small businesses.
How many of those "big" manufacturers top out on that dollar side of the house? LOTS of them!!
So standby for the ASR mandates to be changed right after the first series of accuracy test
Sincerely,
Theis
The devil is in the details
....as previously noted the ASR in its' CURRENT form is a total set aside for small business.Well lets see how long that last because here are the details for just that mandate:
The U.S. Small Business Administration counts companies with as much as $35.5 million in sales and up to 1,500 employees as "small businesses" in regards to Government contracts.
Outside government, companies with less than $7 million in sales and fewer than five hundred employees are widely considered small businesses.
How many of those "big" manufacturers top out on that dollar side of the house? LOTS of them!!
So standby for the ASR mandates to be changed right after the first series of accuracy test
Sincerely,
Theis
So true. And how many more of the fuckheads from Picatinny Arsenal need to go to jail before someone does something about this rampant corruption? The contracting end is a whole other level of corruption beyond what most people could ever imagine.
Corruption? Or bureaucracy? There's a big gray area there...some of it forced onto the defense industry by the government.
Totally agree but the recent string convictions proves the criminal corruption. I was trying to respond to Theis's comment about "revising" the requirements to in essence steer contracts. Without a 'spec' nothing can be purchased and that's where a lot of this corruption starts in my limited experience.
Gotcha.
As an aside, a lot of that is, it's SOCOM. They tend to bend the rules quite a bit, and favor those small companies that are staffed by former "operators" themselves. Kind of not the best way to do business, but it's SOCOM, so everyone tends to look the other direction.
As an aside, a lot of that is, it's SOCOM. They tend to bend the rules quite a bit, and favor those small companies that are staffed by former "operators" themselves. Kind of not the best way to do business, but it's SOCOM, so everyone tends to look the other direction.
