• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Geissele MRGG-S adopted by USSOCOM in 6.5 CM.

Show me Another Chrome lined barrel that has over 6K on the tube and still (if it ever did) holds half moa with FACTORY ammo.

Show me another phased gas array that not only changes the entire recoil impulse, making the shoot super soft both with a can and without, but no longer suffers from port erosion the way a legacy barrel would.
You manage to ruin every thread you post in with your constant BS.

New steel! 2x the expected service life!!! New gas system! No recoil, and no port erosion! Great price, 1000% normal value!!!

No one is saying it isn't a good weapon. Anyone that has been in this space for a while knows it is $2k in assembled parts that should have an MSPR somewhere in the $3s or $4s, except that it is now a mil contract gun and Geissele can just slyly sell the ones that don't make the accuracy guarantee to the civ market on the side. No one, until you spouted off your typical BS, has ever suggested it was a value at $6500, because someone from SOCOM touched it in a naughty place.

And FWIW, the last time Geissele had an innovation in gas ports, they designed a conical orifice in the gas block "for a smoother impulse" that inadvertently created a jet of hot flame that destroyed the gas block and eventually hand guard, in that order.
 
For perspective, this just popped up in my inbox:

1000004525.png

$5200 for just an upper. Not a complete rifle or even a complete deployment kit.
 
$5200 for just an upper. Not a complete rifle or even a complete deployment kit.
It would be fun to hear the KAC guys discuss why they did or didn't want to play in this (MRGG) game.
 
It would be fun to hear the KAC guys discuss why they did or didn't want to play in this (MRGG) game.
Maybe they still have a hangover from the M110 fiasco. Meanwhile they just sold guns to the Brits. I have to imagine us dod procurement is a giant pain in the ass to deal with for a company. But to be honest, all that isn't very interesting to me. Maybe if you're a business type of guy you'd find some of that interesting But I gave up on the whole "who's who in the biz", " name dropping" and trying to be a champion for businesses that I liked. I helped spec the PSR requirements as an Instructor/ SME with Crane at WARCOM, attended SOPMOD conferences to inform training solutions to match material solutions and define operational capability gaps, sat in backroom SHOT show deals with OSS when they were still trying to build the first suppressor. I'm almost retired now and don't really give a shit about all that stuff. It's a revolving door of drama. But I do find it interesting how systems are evolving. From my days of the original competition oriented SR25s to MK11's, SPRs to fast forward to the new Knights guns the Brits bought and this Geiselle gun. I very much have no clue if this gun is worth a shit but I'm rooting for it. It would be really cool if we end up with a badass gun.
 
From my days of the original competition oriented SR25s to MK11's, SPRs to fast forward to the new Knights guns the Brits bought and this Geiselle gun. I very much have no clue if this gun is worth a shit but I'm rooting for it. It would be really cool if we end up with a badass gun.
+1 I'd really like to hear a good insider-info breakdown...ie, on how all these guns are actually working...eg, in the field...and behind the scenes and during trials, etc...
 
You manage to ruin every thread you post in with your constant BS.

New steel! 2x the expected service life!!! New gas system! No recoil, and no port erosion! Great price, 1000% normal value!!!

No one is saying it isn't a good weapon. Anyone that has been in this space for a while knows it is $2k in assembled parts that should have an MSPR somewhere in the $3s or $4s, except that it is now a mil contract gun and Geissele can just slyly sell the ones that don't make the accuracy guarantee to the civ market on the side. No one, until you spouted off your typical BS, has ever suggested it was a value at $6500, because someone from SOCOM touched it in a naughty place.

And FWIW, the last time Geissele had an innovation in gas ports, they designed a conical orifice in the gas block "for a smoother impulse" that inadvertently created a jet of hot flame that destroyed the gas block and eventually hand guard, in that order.
And you manage to be wrong about everything relating to the mrgg-s. Had you actually left mom's basement maybe you would have had a chance to see them in action. There will probally be a few this weekend at the giessle match.
 
It would be fun to hear the KAC guys discuss why they did or didn't want to play in this (MRGG) game.

We'll pretty much always participate in programs that are in our wheel-house.

As far as our participation in MRGG-S, we were already on contract for upgrade kits for M110s in 6.5 when the first MRGG program came out (the vast majority of observers are unaware that the M110 6.5 kits and MRGG were/are separate programs). MRGG round 1 stopped and was respun into two separate programs, MRGG-S (Sniper) and MRGG-A (Assault), with similar but different requirements. When it comes to competitive opportunities, not meeting a requirement can immediately disqualify a submission. MRGG-A (first spin) and MRGG-S had hardware delivery for initial down-select at the same time. KAC's MRGG-S submission was delivered with a buttstock that did not have an adjustable cheek piece, so we were not able to progress. The MRGG-A hardware was compliant (did not have an adjustable cheekpiece requirement) and we moved forward to the following phases before it was also stopped and respun.

So that's pretty much it; an error during assembly and packing (stocks weren't swapped to the intended submission hardware) wasn't caught by my department on final inspection and we were booted from MRGG-S without firing a single shot.

*Cue sad violin noises*
 
The 2024 base retail on just that upper, before cerakote, is nearly $4700. Is that one of your dealers, can’t really call that secondary can you?

Yes, retail is 4677.75 for the 100223 upper, but in "normal" times MAP (and under MAP) is where things really sell for, and on the 100223 that's 4443.86. Willingness to buy and sell at over retail is a symptom of a heavy secondary market where pure demand to supply value happens.
No, I'm certainly not accusing one of our dealers of being a scalper, I meant that as a comment on my perception of the secondary KAC market and how aggressively it is reflecting on common pricing.
 
+1 I'd really like to hear a good insider-info breakdown...ie, on how all these guns are actually working...eg, in the field...and behind the scenes and during trials, etc...
I've got a lot of time on actual gov SR25s. Really awesome platforms, but at such a weight penalty. It can do everything you want it to, mount NV, bipods, etc, etc. But 12-14 pounds starts to be absurd when you are just slinging 168 or 175 308 around, and that is without the can on it. I've only used it on the range or in training, or in vehicle turrets, and they were always 1.2-1.5 inch guns, with FGMM match or LC match. Which, I always say, was totally fine for the intended usage. But we couldn't pass our Sniper qual with them normally, and it isn't that punishing of a qual, presuming your gun can shoot 1-1.2 MOA or better. And that is honestly what I'm the most excited about with the Geissele offering, that they some how figured out a 3/4 MOA gasser, at scale, which would be a big leap forward (I know, I know, everyone on this site built an AR10 that shoots .25 MOA groups). For me, it becomes hard to really assess reliability, in the case of the SR25 because it just isn't an assaulter rifle and you'd need different optics to accomplish that. So it is more of a support rifle or sniper substitute. You do get more suppressing ability, if that is something you want. Follow up is quick. Accuracy is fine.

But I think it is why you still see people trying to offer solutions like the 6mm ARC - you get your range back, but you can also use your rifle multiple ways. And while the premise of the large frame AR was increased utility, I often didn't feel that way and always chose to put a dedicated bolt in a backpack, and carry an assaulter carbine, rather than try to just carry an SR25. I'm not in anyway suggesting that I'm saying this representative of a broad set of missions, but I'm saying in my particular use case, they mostly stayed in the armory. Whereas other guys that had access to much lighter Larue OBRs, were using those as a primary. And none of that is to say that the new Geissele is trying to be a crossover rifle.

I personally think it is pretty telling that you have so many large frame ARs that have found acceptance at varying military and police units. LMT MWS, KAC SR25, the Larue (I know people who could procure anything and LOVE the OBR, especially configured for lighter weight), FN SCAR, the HK, and now the Geissele. I also think it is telling that the "it" gun keeps changing. Maybe that says something about the AR scaled up than anything else. One of the reasons I was excited about Ruger's effort to shrink things down.
 
I've got a lot of time on actual gov SR25s. Really awesome platforms, but at such a weight penalty. It can do everything you want it to, mount NV, bipods, etc, etc. But 12-14 pounds starts to be absurd when you are just slinging 168 or 175 308 around, and that is without the can on it. I've only used it on the range or in training, or in vehicle turrets, and they were always 1.2-1.5 inch guns, with FGMM match or LC match. Which, I always say, was totally fine for the intended usage. But we couldn't pass our Sniper qual with them normally, and it isn't that punishing of a qual, presuming your gun can shoot 1-1.2 MOA or better. And that is honestly what I'm the most excited about with the Geissele offering, that they some how figured out a 3/4 MOA gasser, at scale, which would be a big leap forward (I know, I know, everyone on this site built an AR10 that shoots .25 MOA groups). For me, it becomes hard to really assess reliability, in the case of the SR25 because it just isn't an assaulter rifle and you'd need different optics to accomplish that. So it is more of a support rifle or sniper substitute. You do get more suppressing ability, if that is something you want. Follow up is quick. Accuracy is fine.

But I think it is why you still see people trying to offer solutions like the 6mm ARC - you get your range back, but you can also use your rifle multiple ways. And while the premise of the large frame AR was increased utility, I often didn't feel that way and always chose to put a dedicated bolt in a backpack, and carry an assaulter carbine, rather than try to just carry an SR25. I'm not in anyway suggesting that I'm saying this representative of a broad set of missions, but I'm saying in my particular use case, they mostly stayed in the armory. Whereas other guys that had access to much lighter Larue OBRs, were using those as a primary. And none of that is to say that the new Geissele is trying to be a crossover rifle.

I personally think it is pretty telling that you have so many large frame ARs that have found acceptance at varying military and police units. LMT MWS, KAC SR25, the Larue (I know people who could procure anything and LOVE the OBR, especially configured for lighter weight), FN SCAR, the HK, and now the Geissele. I also think it is telling that the "it" gun keeps changing. Maybe that says something about the AR scaled up than anything else. One of the reasons I was excited about Ruger's effort to shrink things down.
New M110s and SR-25 are pretty much completely different rifles than the Mk 11 and M110 SASS models.
The 6.5 upgrade kits going to SOCOM M110 users are lighter and shorter than the M110, including the 22" 6.5 (shorter low-backpressure suppressor), and have a collapsible B5 precision stock (see my above sad story). The 14.5" 6.5 is highly portable, and out-performs a 20" .308. Having good ammo (M1200) is a big plus for the program (we have been #1 or at worst in the top 3 for accuracy in every phase of MRGG and other programs that our current line has competed in).
 
We'll pretty much always participate in programs that are in our wheel-house.

As far as our participation in MRGG-S, we were already on contract for upgrade kits for M110s in 6.5 when the first MRGG program came out (the vast majority of observers are unaware that the M110 6.5 kits and MRGG were/are separate programs). MRGG round 1 stopped and was respun into two separate programs, MRGG-S (Sniper) and MRGG-A (Assault), with similar but different requirements. When it comes to competitive opportunities, not meeting a requirement can immediately disqualify a submission. MRGG-A (first spin) and MRGG-S had hardware delivery for initial down-select at the same time. KAC's MRGG-S submission was delivered with a buttstock that did not have an adjustable cheek piece, so we were not able to progress. The MRGG-A hardware was compliant (did not have an adjustable cheekpiece requirement) and we moved forward to the following phases before it was also stopped and respun.

So that's pretty much it; an error during assembly and packing (stocks weren't swapped to the intended submission hardware) wasn't caught by my department on final inspection and we were booted from MRGG-S without firing a single shot.

*Cue sad violin noises*
Thats the kinda douchy move that makes us (technical contracting and program leads, IE COR's) hate contracting officers. Obviously the rules and terms of the RFP/Proposal need to be followed but they need to be designed in such a way that simple mistakes and oversights can be corrected by the vendor as not to DQ them. This latitude is provided in the FAR/DFAR but needs to be written into the documentation. In the end, The customer gets a better product and knows that the competition was legitimate, and not won on some bullshit technicality that truthfully, you could find a reason to DQ any product submitted due to the bullshit they shove into each contract.

Not to mention a pure Performance work statement using performance based objectives instead of design critera would allow industry the latitude to come up with true innovative products. Then there is the issues similar to the M110 PIP proposals where the gov is too fucking stupid to listen to the experts. Contracting officers are some of the dumbest, most arrogant fuckstains in the entire gov.

Honeslty glad not to be in that field anymore, no one is happy and enjoying their life. I thought about going into industry when I retire and helping to write proposals but there is zero joy in that work and its just stacking layers of bullshit. Even working for an awesome company, it would be missrible work.
 
Its hilarious when nobody loser faggots talk shit about people they A. Don't know and B. Give a TON back to the community. One of the nicest dudes out there.
 
We'll pretty much always participate in programs that are in our wheel-house.

As far as our participation in MRGG-S, we were already on contract for upgrade kits for M110s in 6.5 when the first MRGG program came out (the vast majority of observers are unaware that the M110 6.5 kits and MRGG were/are separate programs). MRGG round 1 stopped and was respun into two separate programs, MRGG-S (Sniper) and MRGG-A (Assault), with similar but different requirements. When it comes to competitive opportunities, not meeting a requirement can immediately disqualify a submission. MRGG-A (first spin) and MRGG-S had hardware delivery for initial down-select at the same time. KAC's MRGG-S submission was delivered with a buttstock that did not have an adjustable cheek piece, so we were not able to progress. The MRGG-A hardware was compliant (did not have an adjustable cheekpiece requirement) and we moved forward to the following phases before it was also stopped and respun.

So that's pretty much it; an error during assembly and packing (stocks weren't swapped to the intended submission hardware) wasn't caught by my department on final inspection and we were booted from MRGG-S without firing a single shot.

*Cue sad violin noises*
Damn. That's almost funny.

Just curious, did you fire anyone over that oversight?
 
Bizarre sense of humor

That you 2 were the joke? Just guessing
I'm serious. I don't think we fire people enough. It's a conundrum in my current job. Just curious what constitutes standards at KAC for fuckups. What's that saying? "The baseline of your culture is the worst thing that you allow". What's your baseline for competency? What's the worst fuckup your company will allow? Costing you a slot at a large DOD procurement when you're a defense company? Is that bad enough?
 
We'll pretty much always participate in programs that are in our wheel-house.

As far as our participation in MRGG-S, we were already on contract for upgrade kits for M110s in 6.5 when the first MRGG program came out (the vast majority of observers are unaware that the M110 6.5 kits and MRGG were/are separate programs). MRGG round 1 stopped and was respun into two separate programs, MRGG-S (Sniper) and MRGG-A (Assault), with similar but different requirements. When it comes to competitive opportunities, not meeting a requirement can immediately disqualify a submission. MRGG-A (first spin) and MRGG-S had hardware delivery for initial down-select at the same time. KAC's MRGG-S submission was delivered with a buttstock that did not have an adjustable cheek piece, so we were not able to progress. The MRGG-A hardware was compliant (did not have an adjustable cheekpiece requirement) and we moved forward to the following phases before it was also stopped and respun.

So that's pretty much it; an error during assembly and packing (stocks weren't swapped to the intended submission hardware) wasn't caught by my department on final inspection and we were booted from MRGG-S without firing a single shot.

*Cue sad violin noises*
Woof!
 
I'm serious. I don't think we fire people enough. It's a conundrum in my current job. Just curious what constitutes standards at KAC for fuckups. What's that saying? "The baseline of your culture is the worst thing that you allow". What's your baseline for competency? What's the worst fuckup your company will allow? Costing you a slot at a large DOD procurement when you're a defense company? Is that bad enough?
It sounds like a multi point failure and within a small team environment there would likely be some history and loyalty unless it was a multiple repeat.
 
It sounds like a multi point failure and within a small team environment there would likely be some history and loyalty unless it was a multiple repeat.
Well, it sounds like Jack is still there so I guess it doesn't fall into "responsible for everything the patrol does and fails to to do" category
 
Apparently, even Aero "dabbled" in it as well.
And if you'd like to watch a full auto 6.5CM being fired.

 
  • Like
Reactions: BCP
In a world where a $4800 gun still needs $1000 put into it a 6500 rifle doesn't seem too bad. $1600 Magnus suppressors, $4500 scopes, $3000 progressive presses, $3200 AR15's. Meh, how many people paid $7000 for an AXMC or $10K for an AXSR? It's up there but not unheard of.
The world of suckers
 
  • Like
Reactions: GhostFace
Damn. That's almost funny.

Just curious, did you fire anyone over that oversight?

Didn't they miss out on the Brit contract that LMT won for the L129 from a silly mistake (brought wrong guns/barrel length or something)?... Def not the first time KAC missed out; maybe hire some rabid fanbois/cloners with OCD level attention to detail?


(Though IIRC, didn't Robbie Reidsma from HK get called out for personally delivering ambi-safety levers that got left off a contract entrant so they wouldn't get bumped for that technicality?)
 


So that's pretty much it; an error during assembly and packing (stocks weren't swapped to the intended submission hardware) wasn't caught by my department on final inspection and we were booted from MRGG-S without firing a single shot.

I’m going to say this while trying not to sound insulting, as I’ve had my fair share of screw ups in both the mil and civ work environment.

But as an engineer who has worked a number of DoD proposals and test events, that is a very easy-to-avoid error. I hope processes, to include checklists and requirements verification, have been updated. I’m guessing I’m stating the obvious and KAC has already implemented lessons learned. But regardless, I appreciate the openness.



Not to mention a pure Performance work statement using performance based objectives instead of design critera would allow industry the latitude to come up with true innovative products….
In the DoD research realm, that is the vast majority of program requirements. MOEs and MOPs. The non-performance based requirements usually only crop up when hardware or software needs to be designed a specific way for integration reasons into existing systems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brownings_ghost
We'll pretty much always participate in programs that are in our wheel-house.

As far as our participation in MRGG-S, we were already on contract for upgrade kits for M110s in 6.5 when the first MRGG program came out (the vast majority of observers are unaware that the M110 6.5 kits and MRGG were/are separate programs). MRGG round 1 stopped and was respun into two separate programs, MRGG-S (Sniper) and MRGG-A (Assault), with similar but different requirements. When it comes to competitive opportunities, not meeting a requirement can immediately disqualify a submission. MRGG-A (first spin) and MRGG-S had hardware delivery for initial down-select at the same time. KAC's MRGG-S submission was delivered with a buttstock that did not have an adjustable cheek piece, so we were not able to progress. The MRGG-A hardware was compliant (did not have an adjustable cheekpiece requirement) and we moved forward to the following phases before it was also stopped and respun.

So that's pretty much it; an error during assembly and packing (stocks weren't swapped to the intended submission hardware) wasn't caught by my department on final inspection and we were booted from MRGG-S without firing a single shot.

*Cue sad violin noises*
That's absolutely wild....
 
Damn. That's almost funny.

Just curious, did you fire anyone over that oversight?

No, I did not see it as a sufficient reason to terminate employment for those involved.

It sounds like a multi point failure and within a small team environment there would likely be some history and loyalty unless it was a multiple repeat.

It was a combination of errors mostly due to a compressed timeline with several other projects happening at the same time. Definitely not an excuse for those at fault, but a contributing factor on why the "normal" process was not followed.

Well, it sounds like Jack is still there so I guess it doesn't fall into "responsible for everything the patrol does and fails to to do" category

It's my job to bear the brunt of the fallout from a failure, but just as I did not see it reasonable to terminate good employees that made a mistake (that they certainly learned from), my value was seen as greater then the failure of a program that falls under my portfolio.

Didn't they miss out on the Brit contract that LMT won for the L129 from a silly mistake (brought wrong guns/barrel length or something)?... Def not the first time KAC missed out; maybe hire some rabid fanbois/cloners with OCD level attention to detail?

The L129 disqualification was due to a miscommunication between our then UK rep and the sales team here in the US. A 20" M110 SASS was requested, when a 16" rifle was desired. This (MRGG-S) was the first time since I have been here (2012) that something like this has happened. Attention to detail is a defining requirement for folks that work in this environment, and the only criticism of the project that I can accept of my team is that my personal involvement should have been higher in the final stages.

I’m going to say this while trying not to sound insulting, as I’ve had my fair share of screw ups in both the mil and civ work environment.

But as an engineer who has worked a number of DoD proposals and test events, that is a very easy-to-avoid error. I hope processes, to include checklists and requirements verification, have been updated. I’m guessing I’m stating the obvious and KAC has already implemented lessons learned. But regardless, I appreciate the openness.

Yes, an avoidable error that disqualifies a submission from competition does not pass quietly into the darkness to be forgotten. Things like this normally fall entirely under my direct involvement. While not a desired situation, the lessons learned by the personnel involved have ensured that they never repeat the same, and will be proactive on problem identification early in the process.
 
'[;


Uh no. Comparing some shitty parts gone slapped together by a chad to a engineered/tested weapon system that has been ran through SOCOM testing, beat all comparable products from proven companies AND does things no other semi auto SWS does from the factory is a massive difference.

Show me Another Chrome lined barrel that has over 6K on the tube and still (if it ever did) holds half moa with FACTORY ammo. The gun was not babied either, it was used as a demo to a bunch of pro shooters who shot the piss out of it, running stages back to back, without it cooling off. Show me another phased gas array that not only changes the entire recoil impulse, making the shoot super soft both with a can and without, but no longer suffers from port erosion the way a legacy barrel would. So now instead of port erosion/gas system issues being the limiting factor when you need to pull a barrel, it will be the actual accuracy degradation and MV loss like a bolt gun.

Oh and that gun with 6K+ on it still holding half MOA, its still going.

There is a ton of a proprietary tech in the gun, so stop showing your ignorance.

Just about everything you state is incorrect. There are people on this site who have tested the MRGG and are testing the small frame version of this gun in a bunch of calibers right now. They can't talk about it for the obvious but you have zero idea what your talking about.

This gun has zero in common with the MRAD or its solicitation. MRAD was a massive compromise to get US military wide adoption so Big army would pay for it instead of SOCOM dollars. This system is being paid for with SOCOM O&M and as such, they are getting exactly what they want.
I am not going to make this post any better but I have brought products to market and as a manufacturer you have to recoup your development cost. I searched for Geissele patents and counted at least 11 separate patents that went into this rifle. There is no telling how much money they have spent on the hardened BCG and the steel formula for the barrel. No idea how much money they spent changing the throat of the barrel to help stop erosion, how much they spent on tuning the gas and recoil system.

While I understand that once you develop a product, in this case a rifle that you may have a production cost that is significantly lower then MSRP. That production cost does need to reflect you recouping your development cost. Once that has occurred, you have the ability to improve production efficiency and lower cost.

I have really been impressed with some of the things that Geissele is doing. I like their super duty rifles in 5.56. Their 6 ARC submission and adoption again came with them being creative and solving problems and adding value added new technology just like they did with this program.
 
No, I did not see it as a sufficient reason to terminate employment for those involved.



It was a combination of errors mostly due to a compressed timeline with several other projects happening at the same time. Definitely not an excuse for those at fault, but a contributing factor on why the "normal" process was not followed.



It's my job to bear the brunt of the fallout from a failure, but just as I did not see it reasonable to terminate good employees that made a mistake (that they certainly learned from), my value was seen as greater then the failure of a program that falls under my portfolio.



The L129 disqualification was due to a miscommunication between our then UK rep and the sales team here in the US. A 20" M110 SASS was requested, when a 16" rifle was desired. This (MRGG-S) was the first time since I have been here (2012) that something like this has happened. Attention to detail is a defining requirement for folks that work in this environment, and the only criticism of the project that I can accept of my team is that my personal involvement should have been higher in the final stages.



Yes, an avoidable error that disqualifies a submission from competition does not pass quietly into the darkness to be forgotten. Things like this normally fall entirely under my direct involvement. While not a desired situation, the lessons learned by the personnel involved have ensured that they never repeat the same, and will be proactive on problem identification early in the process.
Hire Kevin Boland back. He will get shit sorted out ;)
 
@Jack_L I know I and many others really appreciate someone at a tier one firearms company with lots of government contracts spending their time on this forum and sharing their insights like you did on this thread, so please just ignore the reddit style nonsense that was posted earlier.
 
I'm serious. I don't think we fire people enough. It's a conundrum in my current job. Just curious what constitutes standards at KAC for fuckups. What's that saying? "The baseline of your culture is the worst thing that you allow". What's your baseline for competency? What's the worst fuckup your company will allow? Costing you a slot at a large DOD procurement when you're a defense company? Is that bad enough?


I agree with you, but if you end up working in a big corporation when you hang up the spurs you better get ready to see some colossal shitbags get away with years of incompetence, and then usually promote out. Meritocracy has been all but killed by DEI and fucking HR lawyers.


Back on topic


I’m curious how these rifles perform long term. I say that in the vein of how different more current users think about the generations of the SR25s as compared to early GWOT shooters. Will this new rifle follow a similar path? Guess we’ll see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PappyM3
KAC was dug in tight with the unit since the 90s. Its nice when a big part of your R&D is the best funded special operations unit in the world, with their own huge R&D budget and operations. We can in large part thank KAC and Delta for the reinvention of the large frame AR in the 90s and the development, advancement and standardization through the 00s and 10's. I think with the K2 generation of guns, we kind of hit peak performance and it wasn't until some radical changes (such as phased gas array and a barrel that can shoot that tight for that long) that we see improvement with the large frame.

The other thing is the advancements in the small frame with calibers like the 6 and 22 arc, are really taking away the advantage of a large frame AR, unless you need the energy downrange. They are much smaller, lighter, standardized, easier to shoot and have way more options for build out. There are going to need to be serious advancements with the large frame to make it worth it. But the funny thing is all the advancements that make the MRGG so great, are being rolled into the GFR small frame.

If It was my money, today, I would buy a 6 ARC GFR or wait for the 22arc that's currently being tested to roll out.
 
No, I did not see it as a sufficient reason to terminate employment for those involved.



It was a combination of errors mostly due to a compressed timeline with several other projects happening at the same time. Definitely not an excuse for those at fault, but a contributing factor on why the "normal" process was not followed.



It's my job to bear the brunt of the fallout from a failure, but just as I did not see it reasonable to terminate good employees that made a mistake (that they certainly learned from), my value was seen as greater then the failure of a program that falls under my portfolio.



The L129 disqualification was due to a miscommunication between our then UK rep and the sales team here in the US. A 20" M110 SASS was requested, when a 16" rifle was desired. This (MRGG-S) was the first time since I have been here (2012) that something like this has happened. Attention to detail is a defining requirement for folks that work in this environment, and the only criticism of the project that I can accept of my team is that my personal involvement should have been higher in the final stages.



Yes, an avoidable error that disqualifies a submission from competition does not pass quietly into the darkness to be forgotten. Things like this normally fall entirely under my direct involvement. While not a desired situation, the lessons learned by the personnel involved have ensured that they never repeat the same, and will be proactive on problem identification early in the process.
Your a class act and have demonstrated some impressive leadership skills

In my prior company I sold slings to KAC for many years and loved the people I dealt with


My career was full of that a boys and very few of shits. Thankfully not many that would remember an of shit are still with us but I still recall every oh shit because it was a learning experience
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that FN is gorgeous! I wonder if the lower is compatible with the SCAR-H. Needs to get rid of that Vortex optic though. Someone from FN probably had a freebie from a trade show or gas gun competition lying around.

Alas, the 17S DMR 6.5 CM is the MRGG-S I have at home.
 
We'll pretty much always participate in programs that are in our wheel-house.
KAC's MRGG-S submission was delivered with a buttstock that did not have an adjustable cheek piece, so we were not able to progress.
Adjustable cheek piece in the field?
WTF
They know what they’re doing over there in Titusville and they know when a program is designed to fail so they submit it the way it should be and let some other crew put their name on a money pit.
 
Adjustable cheek piece in the field?
WTF
They know what they’re doing over there in Titusville and they know when a program is designed to fail so they submit it the way it should be and let some other crew put their name on a money pit.
Yes, adjustable cheek piece:
IMG_9809.jpeg