• 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!

Rifle Scopes Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tuna921</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 7mmRM</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
DOD contracts don't go to the best product, its a whole myriad of politics, logistics and who can throw in the most crap (ask SigSauer)...... </div></div>

While I generally agree with what you are saying, I do think that in this particular instance they got the best product. Especially for what was available at the time the contract was awarded. </div></div>

+1 </div></div>

+2


Meanwhile, the Marines also are upgrading the optics for scout snipers. In 2005, the Corps awarded a $15 million contract to Premiere Reticles, of Winchester, Va., for scout sniper day scopes to replace the service's aging and failing Unertl sniper scopes. Premiere Reticles is the U.S. distributor for the German-made Schmidt & Bender 3x12x50 combat telescope.

The new scopes will become standard equipment for all Marine 7.62 mm M40A1, M40A2 and M40A3, and .50 caliber M82A1, M82A2 and M82A3 sniper riflesSniper rifles:
Regular 'sniper' rifles. Including scoped variants of regular weapons, dedicated designs, dedicated marksman variants, etc..
Accuracy International Arctic Warfare / L96
Accuracy International Arctic Warfare AE


..... Click the link for more information.. The Barrett Firearms CompanyFor the assault rifle, see Valmet M82. For the hair clip, see barrette.

The Barrett Firearms Company was founded in 1980 by Ronnie Barrett. The company's main product is the Barrett M82A1 sniper rifle.
..... Click the link for more information., of Murfreesboro, Tenn., manufactures the .50 caliber rifles. The 7.62 mm weapons are handmade by Marine armorers at Quantico. The service initially purchased 575 scopes at $1,749 each. The contract allows the Corps to buy a total of 7,500 by 2010.

The Schmidt & Bender scope replaces the venerable Unertl. It features an illuminated, state-of-the-art reticle that allows for more precise range finding at greater distances and on a wider variety of target sizes.

Marines have reported that the new sight is more durable than its predecessor. It holds its sight alignment during rough and ready combat conditions.

One complaint about the Schmidt & Bender scope is that it measures in meters, rather than yards, but snipers apparently are adjusting to that. Those of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment scored the first recorded combat kill using the new optic in January. They killed an insurgent INSURGENT. One who is concerned in an insurrection. He differs from a rebel in this, that rebel is always understood in a bad sense, or one who unjustly opposes the constituted authorities; insurgent may be one who justly opposes the tyranny of constituted authorities. planting improvised explosive devices near Tallulah, Iraq.

In addition, the Corps this year plans to procure:

* A new scout sniper observation telescope to take the place of to be substituted for.
- Berkeley.

See also: Place the 20-power daytime M49 spotting scopeA spotting scope is a portable telescope, optimized for the observation of terrestrial objects. The magnification of a spotting scope is typically on the order of 20X to 60X.
..... Click the link for more information.. The M49 has seen several decades of use observing potential targets for snipers and artillery.

* A scout sniper medium-range night sight. This scope is a lightweight, weapon-mounted, battery-operated device for engaging targets at ranges between 400 and 800 yards during nighttime and other low-light conditions.

* A scout sniper observer night device to detect, identify and range main-size targets up to 400 yards away and vehicle-size objects up to 800 yards distant in reduced lighting The reduction in brightness of ground vehicle lights by either reducing power or by screening in such a way that any visible light is limited in output. See also normal lighting. or obscured conditions.

* A tactical weapons light to attach to rifle barrels, enabling Marine to illuminate potential nighttime targets without having to fumble with fumble with vt fus &#8594; manosear a separate, handheld flashlight.

Between 2008 and 2011, the Marines plan to conduct research and development into the next generation of optics and begin fielding them to operating forces, starting with infantry units, Beal said.

The Marines are eager to replenish their inventory of obsolete optical systems with modern technology. The Corps has "tens of thousands of items that I will not be able to maintain," Beal said. Some of them predate the Korean War Korean War, conflict between Communist and non-Communist forces in Korea from June 25, 1950, to July 27, 1953. At the end of World War II, Korea was divided at the 38th parallel into Soviet (North Korean) and U.S. (South Korean) zones of occupation. .

"I want to replace multiple systems with one item--a family line of optical systems," she said. "I want a small, light, low-powered package with day and night capability, global positioning system Global Positioning System: see navigation satellite.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Positioning System (GPS)

Precise satellite-based navigation and location system originally developed for U.S. military use. technology, precision targeting and--this being the Marine Corps--I want it for free."

Beal was not serious about the price, of course, but funding is a concern, she noted. Spending has fluctuated from $82 million in 2006 to $22 million requested for 2007. However, the 2006 emergency funding bill to pay for wartime and Katrina expenses, signed into law in June by President Bush, contained $271.5 million for Marine optics.

Acquiring the latest in combat optics is important on the battlefield, Grass emphasized. He noted that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have encountered enemy snipers equipped with telescopes and night-vision equipment.

Most of the enemy gear was old, often from the Soviet era. But it can be effective, he said. "If we're going to win battles, we have to maintain our technological advantage."
COPYRIGHT 2006 National Defense Industrial Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

Right here tells you not to believe everything you read...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One complaint about the Schmidt & Bender scope is that it measures in meters, rather than yards, but snipers apparently are adjusting to that.</div></div>
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Phil1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...One complaint about the Schmidt & Bender scope is that it measures in meters, rather than yards, but snipers apparently are adjusting to that. ...</div></div>

Not sure about the Marines, but the Army has been using meters instead of yards starting before I first got in, in 1975.
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Phil1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
</div></div>

I assume you got permission to post that, right?
smile.gif
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

SHUSH!!

For the other posters.

Hey its from the national defense industrial association. Since when does accuracy of representation have to be right as far as the facts are concerned.
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

My understanding was the water test failed, but there is a long history of slow procurements of MST100s that probably didn't help. My memory about the delays for getting MST100s is not great, and I'm not sure if that entered into the decision.
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not sure about the Marines, but the Army has been using meters instead of yards starting before I first got in, in 1975.</div></div>

What your scope adjusts in and what your reticle is graduated in is completely independent of what linear system of measure you calculate ranges in.

The writer of that article doesn't know that - and anyone who doesn't know that doesn't know shit.
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My understanding was the water test failed, but there is a long history of slow procurements of MST100s that probably didn't help. My memory about the delays for getting MST100s is not great, and I'm not sure if that entered into the decision.
</div></div>

There was nothing that the MST refurbishment contract had to do with it. The time frame that the MST's were refurbished in was remarkable considering we never had a single print or any parts to use. The reverse engineering was very quick, and the learning curve was pretty steep. Considering that there was nobody else that would step to the plate to take care of these besides us says a lot. I would never consider refurbing the S&B's, some of the engineering in those scopes is kinda strange.

We met more of the key attributes than any other scope that was submitted. The fact that we submitted a design that was completed about 72 hours before the samples were sent had everything to do with it. The USMC came back to us and asked us to handle the water submersion after one of the samples failed, but the design was lacking a key seal. We did get the problem resolved, but it was too late for the race.

If there is anything other than that, then I was not privy to the information.
John III

P.S. There was only a $20 price difference if I remember correctly.
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

Thanks John, I was hoping you'd weigh in. Interesting and answers my question.

-BB
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

“The most common lie is that which one lies to himself; lying to others is relatively an exception”
-Friedrich Nietzsche
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

Umm, Forty, are those quotes directed towards JBW?
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

Didn't realize Hitler was a member.
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

Yeah Forty wtf- at least John weighed in, and explaining a fault on their part no less. Even with a bold faced lie it's more than I'd expect. Of course you're not going to get 100% of every detail.

Sigh, what am I doing, fighting on the nets again. Pass me the popcorn fellas, I'll let the internet gladiators duke it out.
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

Leave it alone. I have been chasing LOWLIGHT for some time about an ageeable disagreement and I must say that in emails and telephonic and one time in person (although, admittedly, he was dressed to pilot the space shuttle and I was in one of those camouflauge suits so popular among people that sometimes shoot but mostly want to have their pictures taken as a sniper - what do they call them? now selling for top dollar online!)

Anyway, LL, give me a call.
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

I have yet to read one of "Forty-One's" posts that didn't make me question if he was intoxicated or certifiable.....or both.

Hoping I get to meet you in person next month.
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

cuz the General's daughter was sneaking over to Jw3's house late at night and got caught!
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...directly to an individual in the shop using the wrong part on the assembly area that leaked.</div></div>

I think that if one were going to send units out to be subjected to tests on which a lot of money was riding, it would be a good idea to ensure beforehand that the units being sent would pass the tests. But, hey, that's just me...


</div></div>
I think the space shuttle probably had some extensive testing regarding "O" rings, but we all know how that worked out! Sometimes stuff just happens! </div></div>


Call me crazy..but there are a tad fewer parts on a rifle scope than a space shuttle...maybe?
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

Actually, there were people who knew what was likely to happen to the space shuttle if it were launched at low temperatures, and who objected to the launch. Their objections were over-ridden, the result of which was 7 dead astronauts and a lot of bother.

Before the first shuttle was launched, NASA had previously calculated that they'd lose one shuttle about every 75 launches. It was a pretty good failure analysis, given that they have, so far, lost 2 in 127 launches.

They just didn't tell very many people. Still haven't, actually.

In the aviation business, lots of pilots - and passengers - have been killed by what's called "get-there-itis", where the decision to continue a flight into known bad conditions result in tragedy.

People don't always make good decisions.

P.S. - for anyone really interested in shuttle risk, here's an interesting link:

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.space.shuttle/2004-07/0287.html
 
Re: Why did USO not get the USMC contract?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chrisj</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...directly to an individual in the shop using the wrong part on the assembly area that leaked.</div></div>

I think that if one were going to send units out to be subjected to tests on which a lot of money was riding, it would be a good idea to ensure beforehand that the units being sent would pass the tests. But, hey, that's just me...


</div></div>
I think the space shuttle probably had some extensive testing regarding "O" rings, but we all know how that worked out! Sometimes stuff just happens! </div></div>


Call me crazy..but there are a tad fewer parts on a rifle scope than a space shuttle...maybe? </div></div>
You aren't crazy; I was just bringing up the "O" ring issue!