Thought this interesting:
Remington Wins $79.7 Million USSOCOM Sniper Rifle Contract « Daily Bulletin
Remington Wins $79.7 Million USSOCOM Sniper Rifle Contract « Daily Bulletin
- Thread starter hillbillybear
- Start date
That's BS and everyone knows it..
I'm totally shocked...
/Sarcasm.
/Sarcasm.
They obviously underbid everyone else with a technically acceptable product. What's the big deal?
"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..
Huh... Contract goes to FGI owned by Cerberus partly ran by politicians... Go figure..
I was a Huge Remington fan since my grandmother worked and retired from them after 35 years. ( she built sniper rifles for the vietnam era) cool huh? And my father retired after 35 years (built rifles during the desert storm era) also cool! And I now have 2 cousins that work there. ( I was born in Ilion NY and am 40 years old) And I have seen how our community prospered from the jobs, and when you heard the name Remington it meant something.... But after Dupont sold out and now these Freedom Arms ASSCLOWNS took over it seems like nothing but big business politics and the pride of Remington has been lost. SAD HUH?
Why all the ill feelings towards Remington? Tell me factually what is better and why??? Yes, it is expensive ; but so is everything else in the running. If you dig deep enough; you will find politics involved in just about anything.
Last edited:
That's a good question... It seems like a nice system and i honestly can't think of a better one that can be mass produced and maintained by a company. I think it's more of the fact that even if there was a better system/package that good ol' FGI woulda still got the contract.
Remington made quality rifles for years setting the standard for out of the box accuracy and leading the way in many different aspects of firearms for years to come (Rem 700, Rem 870, Rem nylon 66, Rem Apache, Rem lightweight model 7, Rem 7400 autoloader, Rem 1100 autoloader.... etc.... You get the Idea. Then they sell out, people lose jobs (huge problem in the Mohawk Valley) and then sub out parts to China (thats right, China) to keep costs down and profit up. All while relying on the reputation that many generations busted their asses to build. I may be a little more partial than some, only cause I've seen it firsthand.
Truth...
QUOTE=rem700targetactical;2691360]Remington made quality rifles for years setting the standard for out of the box accuracy and leading the way in many different aspects of firearms for years to come (Rem 700, Rem 870, Rem nylon 66, Rem Apache, Rem lightweight model 7, Rem 7400 autoloader, Rem 1100 autoloader.... etc.... You get the Idea. Then they sell out, people lose jobs (huge problem in the Mohawk Valley) and then sub out parts to China (thats right, China) to keep costs down and profit up. All while relying on the reputation that many generations busted their asses to build. I may be a little more partial than some, only cause I've seen it firsthand.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE=rem700targetactical;2691360]Remington made quality rifles for years setting the standard for out of the box accuracy and leading the way in many different aspects of firearms for years to come (Rem 700, Rem 870, Rem nylon 66, Rem Apache, Rem lightweight model 7, Rem 7400 autoloader, Rem 1100 autoloader.... etc.... You get the Idea. Then they sell out, people lose jobs (huge problem in the Mohawk Valley) and then sub out parts to China (thats right, China) to keep costs down and profit up. All while relying on the reputation that many generations busted their asses to build. I may be a little more partial than some, only cause I've seen it firsthand.[/QUOTE]
It's a nice looking gun. If the build quality and accuracy is anywhere near my M24 rebuild I would not hesitate to buy one if they offer them for private purchase at some point.
Wish they sold it to civilians...and for a reasonable price...
Not taking into account the ammo in the contract that's right around $15k per rifle. Cheaper than the AI PSR.
Which one would you rather take into combat?
Pahhh! Since when did any Marine or Soldier get to choose what they take into combat. We got what was given to us while it sometimes wasn't bad, it was almost never the latest and greatest... God knows I was an active duty Marine in fallujah getting reservist and national guard leftovers.... The Military is almost as corrupt as the other parts of the government as far contracts, with that being said i'm surprised they didn't pay more and get less.
Last edited:
I seriously don't think Rem's offer is on the same level as the AI.....not even remotely.
Hmmmmm......
Honest question, what is the point of diminishing return with these systems? I want our troops to have great gear, no issues there, they deserve it. That said, the expense involved seems crazy when seemingly $1000 should buy a well built barreled action(rem 700), $250 for a very good trigger, $1000 for surpressor, $1000 for stock or chassis, and $2500-$3,000 for a great day optic. Think about buying in volume, just seems crazy expensive. Not sure how important a switch barrel is but openly admit I would not know.
Agreed.... Hate to keep harping on it but government contracting... But on the flipside they are paying for repair and replacement on a we break it you replace it type warranty... At least I believe that's how it works. I think thats why the Marine Corps still builds their sniper rifles in house, cause we are cheap bastards and want it done right.
Last edited:
Jack of all trades, master of none.
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.
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.
Interesting, but this doesn't really say anything about the quality of Remington rifles.
There's a simple (and "no shit, really?") reason for them selecting Remington's product; it all has to do with how SOCOM's budget and purchasing works. Basically, SOCOM has very limited acquisition authority and budget (at least the one everyone can see). That being the case (limited authority/budget), they do have the ability to "requisition" (aka commandeer) any end item that is in the regular armed forces' supply chain...at no cost to SOCOM. SOCOM only pays for the changes to the baseline end item. Those AC-130's everyone thinks are cool and SOCOM "buys"? Uh-uh. SOCOM tells the USAF they need "n" number of C-130 airframes for modifying into an AC-130, then they pay certain companies to make that (and only that) to happen.
I'm willing to bet there was some wrangling with the Army over this one (much like the latest body armor that SOCOM uses; they waited until the Army bought x number units for their use and then stepped in saying they'd take a slice of them). They were probably eyeing the Army PSR procurement and then wrangling with how this was to be worked out for mods, internally with the Army. They really pissed some folks off over the body armor shenanigan...
SOCOM is definitely an interesting animal that procures stuff like no other service CoCom or branch of service. What is publicly released is almost never how it actually is/was/went down.
So, just because SOCOM selected the Remington MSR type rifle for their use, that does NOT necessarily mean it was the best rifle, just that it was the easiest and cheapest (for their budget) to procure.
JMTCW...
There's a simple (and "no shit, really?") reason for them selecting Remington's product; it all has to do with how SOCOM's budget and purchasing works. Basically, SOCOM has very limited acquisition authority and budget (at least the one everyone can see). That being the case (limited authority/budget), they do have the ability to "requisition" (aka commandeer) any end item that is in the regular armed forces' supply chain...at no cost to SOCOM. SOCOM only pays for the changes to the baseline end item. Those AC-130's everyone thinks are cool and SOCOM "buys"? Uh-uh. SOCOM tells the USAF they need "n" number of C-130 airframes for modifying into an AC-130, then they pay certain companies to make that (and only that) to happen.
I'm willing to bet there was some wrangling with the Army over this one (much like the latest body armor that SOCOM uses; they waited until the Army bought x number units for their use and then stepped in saying they'd take a slice of them). They were probably eyeing the Army PSR procurement and then wrangling with how this was to be worked out for mods, internally with the Army. They really pissed some folks off over the body armor shenanigan...
SOCOM is definitely an interesting animal that procures stuff like no other service CoCom or branch of service. What is publicly released is almost never how it actually is/was/went down.
So, just because SOCOM selected the Remington MSR type rifle for their use, that does NOT necessarily mean it was the best rifle, just that it was the easiest and cheapest (for their budget) to procure.
JMTCW...
I thought the ARMY bought the M2010, completely different rifle.
Yes, and no. They both share a Remington action. From a Remington perspective, they're pretty much the same thing with different options...
While the end result may be different, from a manufacturing perspective, actions can be "diverted" to support the SOCOM rifle just as easily as building PSR's.
While the end result may be different, from a manufacturing perspective, actions can be "diverted" to support the SOCOM rifle just as easily as building PSR's.
Not the same action; not even close!
the fact that you think the military woulda paid the civilian price for the AI PSR you are high, SOCOM pays 250-400 dollars per sig p226, like 1200 dollars per scar 17. when you buy 3-25k of something you get a bit of a price discount. the AI should have won that contract, that was completely and utterly politically driven. just like the scar contract. I know people who were in the PSR test, i'm sorry Rem didn't win it on merit.
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.
There has been nothing done to improve the reliability of the Remington and considering Remington now outsources for some of its parts their quality continues to free fall.
In closing the AI most certainly kicks Remington's ass in the reliability department as it does with just about every other bolt-action manufacturer.
I suppose you have first hand experience on what Remington outsources on that particular design; if so please share?? And as far as reliability; please share your personal experience also! Also as far as outsourcing; you don't think others do?
Last edited:
If its good enough for Socom its good enough for big Green, I have been concerned watching how SOCOM becomes increasingly seperate from Big Green. They should all get Savages.
You guys are delusional, the military does not get "deals" on things like everyone seems to think. You think they get a deal on aircraft carriers, aircraft, tanks? No equipment is cheap to design, produce, and maintain. Has anyone here shot the remington?? What makes it less reliable than the AI? I'm all for brand loyalty but come on. Fun discussion though 
.
. Most contracts are not won on "merit". Remington brought a product to the table that met the specs and did it cheaper than AI, that's it.
Joe- Could it have had something to do with AI not manufacturing weapons within the U.S.? I don't remember the details of it but I believe everything we use in the military has to be made by a domestic company. FN and Beretta at least have manufacturing plants within the U.S. even though they are not American companies. If that is correct however, I wonder why AI even put any effort into submitting a proposal for the contract.
Beretta was given an x amount of time to build a facility in the US after they won the contract; the same would possibly apply for any other foreign manufacturer.
Besides that, the GOV PAID FN to devlop the SCAR system, so on top of what they make per unit, the also made a shit load for developing it, with little/no capital risk for themselves. Talk about a fucking scam.
As stated earlier comparing a AI product to ANY remington product is a jest in itself. The cheapest, most poorly built AI rifle is going to be more reliable than the best remington can offer.
As stated earlier comparing a AI product to ANY remington product is a jest in itself. The cheapest, most poorly built AI rifle is going to be more reliable than the best remington can offer.
Last edited:
I think you missed the point.
No, we understand what you're saying. It's just that it doesn't apply to this case. SOCOM can't requisition these rifles to be modified from the Army because the Army doesn't have any of these rifles. The M2010 and the PSR may look similar and are both made be Remington but they're completely different actions. It's like saying SOCOM chose Schmidt and Bender for the PSR scope so they can requisition 3-12x50's from the USMC and have them be "modified" into 5-25x56's. Can't be done. Totally different items. SOCOM is acquiring an all new weapon system and they're paying for all of it themselves.
Some wouldn't recognize a "Horse" if they were staring at it!
Here's a thought for you guys, I'll give it to you that AI would make a better product but they put out specs and Remington met them, so be it. Be glad that money is staying inside the US and not getting shipped to the UK!
How many times have I read that someone on the Hide doesn't have a job or lost their job or selling off rifles to make up for time they are laid off or whatever. I'll give it to you that Remington has laid off a lot of workers but show me a major US company that hasn't (that's a rhetorical ? I'm sure there is one or two). So what, they still employ a lot of US folks and this contract could allow them to employ more!
How many times have I read that someone on the Hide doesn't have a job or lost their job or selling off rifles to make up for time they are laid off or whatever. I'll give it to you that Remington has laid off a lot of workers but show me a major US company that hasn't (that's a rhetorical ? I'm sure there is one or two). So what, they still employ a lot of US folks and this contract could allow them to employ more!
How are you figuring out the price per rifle cost? 80,000,000 divided by the 5,150 number? by my calculator that comes out to the 15,533$ per unit, close enough to what you said. It seems to me the rifle itself could be quite a bit cheaper than that with all of the "accessory" items taken away. I know you won't be able to shoot a rifle without ammunition, but how many soldiers are going to carry a rifle with 4 barrels, 4 magazines, 4 different ammo, etc? maybe the contract isn't for four different calibers, but if it was for 308 and 338 lm or 300 wm that still seems like extra items that will not get delivered to every user.
Your right. The same remington who fired machinists so they could have the parts made in china. The Same Remington/Freedom group, who fired everyone from the windham facility so they could save money.
Who gives a flying fuck where the money goes.. At the end of the day... we want the best product in the hands of out service members. Now what do you think the B4's and SOTIC guys would rather be shooting?
oh thats funny cuz i've seen the fucking reciept and invoice, care to correct me again? yes they do and will sell to the military for less then civilians. yes the SCAR debacle is something i hold near and dear since i've been pretty close to the whole program for a while, but everytime i bad mouth the scar someone who owns one says i work for bushmaster and am trying to dirty their precious scars reputation.
Last edited:
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
Having read the comments in the thread here it is clear that some posting don't know and or fully understand how the procurement process works. Needless to say, trying to explain it in its entirety here is not something I will attempt to do as it is boring shit but I will make some points of clarification. There is a difference between leveraging an existing "program of record" item that already exists and procuring a new item and or improving an existing item in inventory. Depending on how it is funded, it can get tricky when an end user wants to change or improve something. This probably isn't meaning much to anyone at this point and I am not being obtuse intentionally, it's just the way the system works. To give you an idea of how convoluted and drawn out it can be, here is what is refered to as the Horse blanket and is used in the aqusition process before something is fielded to users. Everyone of these milestones has to be met and in some cases it can take years, some longer some shorter,depending on what the item is and where the funding is coming from.Ultimately it ALWAYS depends on the money being earmarked and being there from the start to the finish and it is not uncommon for it to change day to day, week to week, month to month. One day there is funding and progress is being made and then all of a sudden, funding isn't there and the project waits, it's par for course and quite common.
Horse blanket: https://ilc.dau.mil/pdf/ILC_hotspots_linked_pdf.pdf
With all of that said, on that horse blanket there are several times that testing has to be conducted and that testing is very explicit in detail as to what is sucess and what is not. I'm gonna jump ahead a little bit here now.Now where it gets sticky is lets say 2ea companies have a product make the cut, call it X and Y. When the bean counters sit down and have a downselect and approach X and Y and say we want XXXXX of your product and start talking price per unit, maintenance(this is the big money maker/expenditure), ability to produce and field, etc, often times one company wont play ball as much as the other company, usually on price point, so the other company gets the green light. Sometimes the products are comparable and some times one is clearly superior and the number 2 item not so much.
OK, enough of the procuremnt crap. The SWS improvement has been in the works for over 5 years and not at big Army's house but at the SF level, as requirements are bottom driven, believe it or not. Now alot of people have been sitting at this table providing input and "buying in" so to speak, the majority in the SOF community and guess what? Big Army is/was waiting to see what the SF community went with. Which makes sense as all of this is/was done on the SOF communities dime (out of their budgets). Big Army hasn't made a decission yet, hence the reason only SOCOM is getting this weapon system at this point in time. If big Army decides to buy in to what is now a "Program of record" they will literally be able to fastrack the procurement of the approved system to conventional forces as all the testing and bulk of contractual paperwork has already been done.
I've skimmed /skipped over a lot of stuff here so do not take this as an all encompassing and complete explanation, it is not, this is a cliff notes of the cliff notes version at best.
Now what is of interest is that from what I know, the new system is off to a bit of a bumpy start performance wise and the Remington reps are not able to answer simple questions like what is the manufacturer listed max range, max effective and other specs a mfgr is expected to publish and ultimately be put out to the end user. Hopefully they will address the performance issue quickly and the associated paperwork/specs so this will be well received at the end of the day.
Last edited:
PTZ, I have that exact procurement cycle on a Huge 4' x 6' printoutout, rolled up next to my desk. When people come in and ask why contracting is taking so long or why they have to do A.B.C....Z for a procurement action... This thing gets unrolled.... usualy followed with a Fuck me. Its a great tool to get people to shut up and stop asking questions.
The infamous "Life Cycle Management" poster? With all the aforementioned milestones? I'm no finance guy, so I only know enough to be dangerous (or at least enough to know what'll get me in trouble). My previous post was made due to work/procurement discussions with SOCOM, but not specifically about a hardware item, so I'm sure there are deltas...the aircraft comparison was how it was explained to me, by a SOCOM rep.
Last edited:
SOCOM is a double edged sword, it is the hand that feeds and also the hand that chokes. SOCOM is notorious for being the good idea fairy. Case in point, an organization under SOCOM generates a requirement for a widget. SOCOM procures X amount of these widgets,divides them up among the children and says to it's children "here, take this widget and play with it". For some of these children, that means they get enough widgets to give to everyman due to that organizations size. Other ,larger organizations get their allotment but it doesn't cover giving one per man. The organization that made the request might opt to not continue with the widget at all or the larger organizations might ask "can I have some more sir?" only to be told, "sure, you can have more or continue with the procurement process if it comes out of your budget".
A good example is the SCAR. SOCOM pushed/crammed it down USASOC's throat literally. It was a Navy generated request that trickled down to all the children. USASOC said "thank you, none for me, we don't want/need your SCAR". The navy, the rangers,SF, etc all got a specified number of SCARs sent to them for T&E. Keep in mind this is from General officer level to General officer level and rolling down hill. SOCOM tasked USASOC to conduct a field testing of the SCAR despite USASOC saying "we don't want your gun".
So SOCOM can be like a drug dealer, they give you a taste for free and if you want more, you got to pay for it out of your budget. Or if the requesting organization decides to change to a different widget mid stream and abandons the widget you want to further field, SOCOM comes back and says "all gone" if you want to continue with this, it's out of your budget and washes their hands of it. If you've ever seen that commercial for Direct TV whole home DVR where the guy is moving and the neighbor comes over, SOCOM is like that neighbor.
[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H05bsvZxCCs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DH05bsvZxCCs[/video]
Last edited:
SMH. I know, and only too well, about the SOCOM good idea fairy bit...they can also tend to lean towards having the NIH complex as well (not invented here), to their detriment sometimes unfortunately. I think you hit on a key part of it too; rice bowls and cliques within SOCOM itself (not to mention the extreme nepotism that permeates the community). Some call it camaraderie, some call it nepotism; it's a pretty gray area, that like you said, cuts both ways. But I digress...
BTW, that's a f'ing hilarious youtube anology (and very true!).
BTW, that's a f'ing hilarious youtube anology (and very true!).
Similar threads
