I've heard through the grapevine tha Remington won the PSR contact.
I know Gearscout is saying the same so figured I would announce also.
I know Gearscout is saying the same so figured I would announce also.
I would say,
logistics, logistics, logistics...
Gearscout reported 5,000 units I was told 9,000, split the difference and say 7,500 that is still a lot of rifles to support, with 3 calibers each.
Its how Leupold wins a lot of contracts, supply, support, service replacements
logistics, logistics, logistics...
Gearscout reported 5,000 units I was told 9,000, split the difference and say 7,500 that is still a lot of rifles to support, with 3 calibers each.
Its how Leupold wins a lot of contracts, supply, support, service replacements
It also doesn't hurt that ol Freedom Group knows a politician or two! 
It's a solid system, sure I heard a few weren't that great, but I doubt it went that high up the food chain, where wheels needed extra gears. It's a numbers game.
They say the SAKO & FNH were the other contenders at the very end, which are both large volume producers.
They say the SAKO & FNH were the other contenders at the very end, which are both large volume producers.
The MSR looks sweet, hard to say though since they are just not out there. Like some if the other ones have been.
AI must have the production capability, but maybe not AINA?
Hopefully we can buy the other PSR guns in the near future.
Most of the companies are selling them already.
Schmidt & Bender won the PSR scope contract with the 5-25X56 PMII.
Not real surprising, their replacing Remingtons with ... Remingtons. Nice looking rifle. It seems to have the proper upgrades to bring it up to the current state of the art: floating bolt head, interchangeable barrels with lugs as part of the barrel instead of the receiver to facilitate the caliber change, Melonite coatings, and a fully adjustable stock with plenty of room for attachments. At 13lbs it is lighter than I would expect so kudos to Remington for delivering on that. Boy that mounting system sure is high though. I wonder what the price is going to be on these for SOCOM and for civilian sales, assuming they won't H&K us.
They are listed $25k (don't believe that is the kit) and I think some without any kits have been floating around for $18k here and there.
Quoting Gearscout, "millions of rounds of Barnes ammunition". That might have been the tipping point, hard to say I guess. Either way there was some cool stuff to come out of the PSR solicitation. Everyone really stepped up their game. Now I wonder who had won it originally before they re-bid it.
Justin
Justin
Last edited:
I didn't think in any way AI was going to get this contract , FN or Remington were the only real contenders .It's support and politics when it comes to defense contracts.
AI made an outstanding rifle but it won't win a large U.S defense contract against FNH and Remington
AI made an outstanding rifle but it won't win a large U.S defense contract against FNH and Remington
So anyone know how this is going to work/be affected given NY's new gun laws, & the fact that Remington is in said state? As Remington definitely makes rifles capable of holding more than 7 rounds as of last check.
Any word on Sako M10 civilian sales? Seems like all others have a price associated with them.
$25,000 for a Remington 700? Is that correct? Is that thing gold plated with diamonds embedded on it?
Remingtons probably hold more records in the shooting sports than all of the other guns listed but $25,000 is nuts.
The MSR barrel in remington's site is SS, but the specs cited at Gearscout say Chromoly steel .338 barrel with 1:9.5 twist, 5R rifling and Melonite coating.
Is this barrel cold hammer forged or ??? High grade chromoly, hammer forged, could improve barrel life. Or perhaps you need this kind of steel for the coating.
What improvement in barrel life can be expected with the new melonite coating?
Is this barrel cold hammer forged or ??? High grade chromoly, hammer forged, could improve barrel life. Or perhaps you need this kind of steel for the coating.
What improvement in barrel life can be expected with the new melonite coating?
Nice rifle but we all know the federal government over pays for contracts ... E.g. $1000 toilet seats.
The contract hasn't been "won" yet, as there has to be an official press release for government contracts.
Most of what the military is buying is not the hardware, but the logistics, service, support, and the ability to place an order for some yet undefined quantity of products at any time and get a guaranteed delivery within a certain window. You add all the up and that's why the price per unit is so high. The US Navy could have submarines built for only a fraction of their current cost if we didn't have to meet all those pesky submarine safety certification and nuclear quality pedigree requirements and support a logistics tail for next few decades.
I won't deny that some industries are better suited to win defense contracts, but I dispute that it's a rigged system. It's a formal system, governed by US Law (Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)). Potential contractors have to demonstrate that they have an auditable accounting system and quality management system, and they get to submit to government inspectors such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or the Defense Contracting Management Agency (DCMA). They have to prove that they are up to the task, and it's easier to prove this if you already have a demonstrated track record.
Each contractor writes a proposal as to how they can meet the specifications and the proposals are objectively ranked by an independent contracting board consisting of contracting, technical, programmatic and logistics experts (the Program Manager and Resource Sponsor do not determine who sits on it). For an item such as a rifle, they will award based on "best value", which means who can give us the best bang for the buck. There are factors that provide a competitor an edge, such as being US based (sometimes that is a requirement), minority owned, small business, mostly veteran, etc.; but the most important thing is giving the contracting board the warm fuzzy that you will be able to deliver whenever needed.
When you take all of this into account, it's not really surprising that Remington won.
No, the government is really paying for someone to make a unique toilet seat to an exact drawing specification, unusable by any toilet except the one on a P-8 aircraft, and maintain part supportability and inventory for several years. The toilet seat would likely be something that a sub-sub contractor provides, so the government gets to eat the overhead twice. If it doesn't like it, they can try to convince the design engineers to waive the spec limits and then contract out a new design change ... I bet you can guess which route is easier and cheaper.
I think the same thing LCDR JGB has said applies in this case... very difficult to beat an established company with a good product and track record.
Will the action be a 700? I was under the impression that Remington designed an entirely new action for this solicitation and that it would have a 60* bolt throw and be fully CNC'ed to blueprints at the factory and not require any bedding into the chassis system, somewhat like an AIAW (i could be totally off on this).
They did make a great choice on the scope - Cant go wrong with a S/B PMII...I wonder if it will have a Horus H59 or be outfitted with a standard Gen II mil dot.
She is NOT a 700....but better than an AI?
Just because something or a system in this case is picked does not make it "better or worse" as there are a variety of conditions that go into the process.
It is not based on performance of the system but just as much the company, support, location of manufacture, etc.
They look at a wide variety of things, one rifle can out perform in accuracy but lose in company support / logistics, it can be weight, type of caliber change mechanism.
Better or Worse does not apply
It is not based on performance of the system but just as much the company, support, location of manufacture, etc.
They look at a wide variety of things, one rifle can out perform in accuracy but lose in company support / logistics, it can be weight, type of caliber change mechanism.
Better or Worse does not apply
I got to hold the Barrett entry into the tests, just happened to be in AJ's shop at bighorn arms one day when it was there with one of the guys in the shop.
Its a beautiful gun, fit and craftsmanship on that one was superb. And I like that if you REALLY want one, you can theoretically go out and buy an MRAD right now.
I wish they invited someone like the outdoors channel or something to cover the practical shoots. Good, high quality shooting data on the government dime add in some interviews with each of the competing vendors showing off thier platforms.
Its a beautiful gun, fit and craftsmanship on that one was superb. And I like that if you REALLY want one, you can theoretically go out and buy an MRAD right now.
I wish they invited someone like the outdoors channel or something to cover the practical shoots. Good, high quality shooting data on the government dime
add in some interviews with each of the competing vendors showing off thier platforms. Last edited:
The MSR action is completely different than a 700. It is 3 lug and last I saw used a barrel extension type of setup. I'm sort of thinking that there's some exotic materials involved, possibly the stocks were magnesium.
Justin
Justin
Desert Tactical Arms did not enter the last PSR competition, which is unfortunate because we would have given Remington a run for their money. Congrats to Remington though.
Could not have said this better myself. You just left out one piece. Contracts of this size, have a source selection offical. That is usualy a program managager or director who takes into account the SEB/TEB's recomendation and DCMA's review. This is where political pressure comes in and you can get some fishy contract awards. Also keep in mind, that all they have to do is write the SOW/RFP to heavily favor a certian brand or product and its a near shoe in, with no real competition having taken place.
They KNEW who was going to win this contract before they wrote the SOW or sent out the RFP.
here official
http://hanna.house.gov/index.php?op...million-contract&catid=49:press&Itemid=300066
ABOUT THE REMINGTON MODULAR SNIPER RIFLE
The Remington Modular Sniper Rifle (MSR) was designed for operators by operators. It combines lethal accuracy at 1500 meters with a user adjustable folding stock, free-float handguard, and the potential to change barrel lengths and calibers within minutes.
This patent-pending system addresses the long range and medium range needs of the modern battlefield in one package designed to meet multiple emerging US armed forces requirements. The MSR is mission-adaptable with just a change of the bolt face, barrel, and magazine, and features lightweight, efficient design and optimal material selection for performance and corrosion resistance – this system truly never has to leave the battlefield.
Click here for details on Remington's MSR rifle
ABOUT THE CONTRACT
AMOUNT: $79.7 million
LENGTH: 10 years
PRODUCT: The award is for more than 5,000 rifle systems, including AAC Titan QD suppressors and millions of rounds of Barnes ammunition.
Remington Arms was founded in 1816 in Upstate New York and is one of the nation's oldest continually operating manufacturers. Remington Arms designs, produces and sells sporting goods products for the hunting and shooting sports markets, as well as military, government and law enforcement markets.
http://hanna.house.gov/index.php?op...million-contract&catid=49:press&Itemid=300066
ABOUT THE REMINGTON MODULAR SNIPER RIFLE
The Remington Modular Sniper Rifle (MSR) was designed for operators by operators. It combines lethal accuracy at 1500 meters with a user adjustable folding stock, free-float handguard, and the potential to change barrel lengths and calibers within minutes.
This patent-pending system addresses the long range and medium range needs of the modern battlefield in one package designed to meet multiple emerging US armed forces requirements. The MSR is mission-adaptable with just a change of the bolt face, barrel, and magazine, and features lightweight, efficient design and optimal material selection for performance and corrosion resistance – this system truly never has to leave the battlefield.
Click here for details on Remington's MSR rifle
ABOUT THE CONTRACT
AMOUNT: $79.7 million
LENGTH: 10 years
PRODUCT: The award is for more than 5,000 rifle systems, including AAC Titan QD suppressors and millions of rounds of Barnes ammunition.
Remington Arms was founded in 1816 in Upstate New York and is one of the nation's oldest continually operating manufacturers. Remington Arms designs, produces and sells sporting goods products for the hunting and shooting sports markets, as well as military, government and law enforcement markets.
Program managers are supposed to conduct market research to see what solutions industry has to offer. They way contractors can tamper with this process is that they showcase their "solution" with military resource sponsors (i.e., warfighters that have the power to program budgetary line items) to a problem that is not yet articulated as a warfighter requirement. Next thing you know, the resource sponsor is asking for a program manager to meet a requirement that will be almost perfectly met by the contractor's solution. However, a company has to prove it can deliver in order to win, and other contractors still get an opportunity to develop their own system and submit a bit via the Request for Proposal (RFP) process ... it's not a done deal.
Totally behind the times here, but as they 'phase' these in, and then 'phase' the old units out, are they going to be releasing them to the CMP or other venues to the taxpaying masses?
I know that there'll be lots who would like to get 'their old number' back again, not unlike the McMillan stock surplus.
I know that there'll be lots who would like to get 'their old number' back again, not unlike the McMillan stock surplus.
No they can still sell to civilians, they just have to be law enforcement.
I come from DOD contracting. I have seen all the games and the ways contractors and program offices cherry pick data and requirements to get the contractor they want. I have also seen FSA/Contracting authorities go full retard and award products that suck ass.
When a SOW/RFP is designed with product already in mind, its very hard for other bidders to compete. Not only will they have to meet those exact requirements (that may not be the best performance/value), they will have a very hard time getting their products to the desired specs, in the short amount of time. Incumbent/Product of design always has a huge advantage.
Market research also has the little habit of tipping the hand to the vendors you are researching. There is the FAR way, and there is the way it really happens.
Competition is hardly ever "fair".
After designing and building/working on numerous products for the military that are on much of their equipment including: the predator drones, F22, Patriot Missle Systems, EFV, DDG 1000 and the list goes on where I probably shouldn't list here. I can say this... Those guys make you jump through so many hoops that its not even funny. I concur with much that is said above. One of the major problems in my opinion with the military is everything you make for them has to go through qualification testing and then remain unchanged or static. Some of those tests include the MIL-STD-810, EMI tests that I won't list since they don't apply unless you are using electronics on this rifle, MIL-S-901D, MIL-STD-1472.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-810
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-S-901
The point being is once you make a product for them and go through qual. you can't change anything unless you want to do all those qualification tests again. Just thought I would add that as to why some of these contracts are so spendy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-810
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-S-901
The point being is once you make a product for them and go through qual. you can't change anything unless you want to do all those qualification tests again. Just thought I would add that as to why some of these contracts are so spendy.
Holy... I just post another thread not seeing this one, oops.
I asked Beretta last year after my TRG42 blow up due to design issue and almost killed me, their answer was simple said no sir this is only for LE and M
Yes I'm just civilian and they hate me, like Hk
LOL
Not to mention all the paperwork involved keeping track of certs and specs on materials used. By the time you've got 10 lb of parts you have 50 lb of paperwork. You have to keep it all and file it along with paying someone to keep track of all the crap. The cost of the toilet seat includes all the paperwork too. For a commercial contract the price would be 10% or less. All the crap ups the costs.
Frank
Frank
Time will tell if it's a thoroughbred or a donkey.
I have my own issues, and experiences, with .mil and/or .gov purchased gear being forcibly shoved down my throat, all the while being told by my bosses, "Tough shit. It's the only one you get." (Which leads a unit to...)
I know it looks fantastic and all, I wouldn't mind seeing a full spec sheet myself, but I remember the whole M110 thing leaving a sour taste in some people's mouth. It didn't help that some units had to "trade down" as what was put when they turned in their M24s for the M110s. It also didn't help when those units losing the M24s found out that the could have sent it in for a caliber change to .300WM. What I mean by this is that some units are quick to turn in a 500,000 mile car(old reliable piece of gear) for a fancy new car with a couple new features. Yes, they sound nice, but if these new features break, don't work, or keep the rifle from working, then what?
I don't look at this gun as the golden goose of the sniping world ready to lay multi-caliber golden eggs of death, but at the same time I'm not going to kill the $25K goose.
All I'm advising is to be careful not to get starstruck by this.
I have my own issues, and experiences, with .mil and/or .gov purchased gear being forcibly shoved down my throat, all the while being told by my bosses, "Tough shit. It's the only one you get." (Which leads a unit to...)
I know it looks fantastic and all, I wouldn't mind seeing a full spec sheet myself, but I remember the whole M110 thing leaving a sour taste in some people's mouth. It didn't help that some units had to "trade down" as what was put when they turned in their M24s for the M110s. It also didn't help when those units losing the M24s found out that the could have sent it in for a caliber change to .300WM. What I mean by this is that some units are quick to turn in a 500,000 mile car(old reliable piece of gear) for a fancy new car with a couple new features. Yes, they sound nice, but if these new features break, don't work, or keep the rifle from working, then what?
I don't look at this gun as the golden goose of the sniping world ready to lay multi-caliber golden eggs of death, but at the same time I'm not going to kill the $25K goose.
All I'm advising is to be careful not to get starstruck by this.
