Quoted: Quoted: Again, who submitted and were they all AR-based?   What were unit prices, per solicitation, quoted at?   Sorry I forgot SA...I believe they submittedan M14/M21/M1A variant... /S2

=============
What do you know about the SA Inc. entrant and how does differ from the M-1A's offered commerically?   Also, were there any entrants from Europe?

Just picked the latest copy of Special Weapons for Military & Police which mentions the SASS program in their story on the Armalite AR-10(T) Magnum .300 RSAUM. While this program is only mentioned breifly in the beginning of the article it does say "Although the Army's requirement states that the new rifle will be chambered for .308, this requirement is not carved in stone and is subject to change as the military requirement evolves."

Quoted: Quoted: I'm curious to whom ALL submitted entries into this competition? ***Armalite, Bushmaster, Remington/DPMS, KAC, DSA should all be there (at least said they would).  A dark horse or two can usually be expected, but not as many of the real small guys can jump through the paperwork hoops.  My understanding was FN, Cobb, and a couple others had plans to do this but were on the fence.  There will be some proof-of-concept rifles 'submitted' by a military component, and they basically set the bar, ie. "If we could do this good with building up off the shelf parts, done cheap - these pricey bidded rifles had better rock better than ours."  There are simply a LOT of fish in the water (potential contracts/new systems being purchased or built up)  right now, and no one firearms company can pursue them all... It would be nice to see Remington in on the game. Lots of new players and some good ideas.  Should be some interesting accessories coming out of this as well. I'm not very involved with this go-round so am more or less enjoying the show.    :) Kel

===============
The points brought out above cannot be overstated for a host of reasons.  Smaller companies, often with truly cost-effective and just plain better ideas, more than not cannot go through all the paperwork drills required.  Both the USMC and NSWC-Crane are notorious for this, with ARDEC running a close third.  There are several reasons for the huge paperwork drill, some Machiavellian, some bureaucratic:

1) By creating a a huge paperwork hurdle the proponent can effectively weed out the little guy.  The military knows the little guy can often create a better mousetrap, but is fearful that the small company cannot produce the end-item in the quantities required over time, or provide the life-cycle support needed.  Likewise, there is a genuine and well-founded fear that the smaller company cannot maintain the required QA/QC regime over the life of the contract..  There is also the fear that the business model of the smaller company may not be able to support the required expansion required by the SASS contract, for example, let alone SCAR. Knowing that a shop has only a dozen or so employees, the proponent can simply bury him with a 128 page requirements document, as was the case with the SCAR-L/H.  

So who is left to play: we all know the answers. Another reason for the huge paperwork drill is simply because it is the nature of big government.  If we were a lesser power on the world stage, the paper required would be significantly less.  Requirements exist in the magnitude they do because there are frankly, people who have to look busy.  These requirements will keep them busy for months moving matrices, schedules and who knows what else ala Excel from one shared document to another.   A fast track, COTS solution or heaven forbid -- a simple product improvement could cost (government) jobs.    

2.  There's yet another reason the USG likes to deal with the larger companies.  Okay, get out your flamethrowers.  Keep in mind that when the GS  types and uniformed leadership of these proponents reach retirement eligibility, do you you think they want to work for some little guy with eight employees?  Heavens, no.  They want to work where the serious perks are (corporate car, 401K, exec ass't, profit sharing, ability to float laterally in the corporation) and where they can comfortably "work the issues" (i.e. not do real work).  That translates into the big(ger) companies. You know, kinda like what they've been doing for the most part for the last 20-30+ years in government.

3.  The smaller firm (and often the big guy too, so this example may prove to be a wash) often times comes up with a significant product improvement to an existing system that will potentially result in a marked extension of the service life of a given system.  There are advantages and disadvantages to this.  The fiscally responsibility to the US taxpayer is an obvious plus.  There's a big "however" to life-cycle-extending product improvements.  Let's say you're the PM of the XM-999 Close Combat/Sniper/CQB/Auto Grenade Launcher/Tent Peg.  All of a sudden, Bubba's Baitshop & Armory out of Oshkosh finds a $37.87 aapproach to simply change the gas port, op rod, trigger mechanism so that....you get it.  What happens to you XM-999 program tht already has X Zillion dumped into it. Sound familiar?  What happens to your Legion of Merit (1st OLC)?  what happens to your precious little Tiffany/Jason who is in her/his third year of horsey college?  Will you get your first star?  What will you do after retirement? (see No. 2, above).  There are exceptions to this bureaucratic principal, however just as there's a flip side to every argument. In all fairness to the Army and ARDEC in particular, the new CQB Kit program for the M-4A1 should be commended.  Efforts by others in the Army to look at cost effective solutions for the SASS ala M-14, are another example (gasp!).  Same goes with the recent contract award for a rebuild of the M2HB.          

4.  The larger companies also have the (fiscal) resources to simply lobby/get in the government's face and promote their wares to the extent the little guy cannot match.  There is nothing wrong with this on the surface of it.  For the larger firms, it's nothing to get on a plane, go up to Picatinny and spend three days promoting an agenda/product...and of course, take LTC X and SES Y out to dinner and here's a free t-shirt.  So who do you think stays foremost in the mindset of of the PM XM-999: the HUGE FIREARMS CORP. or Bubba's Baitshop & Armory?

Put another way -- How long did the developer of the Otis cleaning kit have to wander in the bureaucratic wilderness before the military took notice.  God bless his efforts!

There are other reasons why the government prefers the larger players, but these are spin-offs of the above two reasons.  Okay, flame away.  

Oh, I almost forgot; no don't work for a "little guy" ... still in unform here -- I see this all the time.      

Quoted: The points brought out above cannot be overstated for a host of reasons.

                         ***It's an honor to have my points noted, thank you.  :)

Smaller companies, often with truly cost-effective and just plain better ideas, more than not cannot go through all the paperwork drills required. 1) By creating a a huge paperwork hurdle the proponent can effectively weed out the little guy.  The military knows the little guy can create a better mousetrap, but is fearful that the small company cannot produce the end-item in the quantities required over time, or provide the life-cycle support needed.  There is also the fear that the business model of the smaller company may not be able to support the required expansion

                            ****A lot of which, fairly, is valid.  Many small shops score 'the big gummint contract' and immediately plow themselves under because they priced themselves too low ("If Big Defense Contractor X makes it for $5600, whoo - I can beat them by hundreds!" -- and then they don't factor in the cost of anything, from the security systems you have to have in place to get the contract, to overhead on new workers and machines - can't expect all five of your employees to work 24 hours a day like they did to make the ten prototypes, etc.).  I think that more or less the root problem is the COTS "Here, you get no development money, but we want an off the shelf solution to a problem no one other than the military has ever had, and we want it now."  I think it's hilarious when I see a solicitation for a Commercial Off The Shelf auto grenade launcher or something like that... I can just see the board of directors at most companies that make sporting arms going  "You know, no problem! We'll just bid the Navy that same 40mm machinegun we've been selling to Cabela's in the commercial market! Why didn't we think of that sooner!?!  :)

If the military let GFE guns, ammo, and equipment flow a bit more, or actually buy smaller guy's designs to be made at large government factories like they did in the old days, we'd have a much yeastier, competitive Free World Industrial Base like they pretend we do.  As a f'rinstance, let's say there's a request for a suppressor for a new, never seen before rifle - off the shelf.  How many suppressor manufacturers have this rifle laying around?  Now, maybe the industry has done development on the caliber before, and I'm sure a system can be massaged to work just ducky on this new thing,  but sometimes it's nice to make accessories for the weapon in mind from the ground up, not kludged together at the last minute.

Ooops, I'm digressing into my own workday....  

Anyway, back to the old days - look at the people who used to make guns during wartime - GM, Fridgidaire, Guide Lamp, Caddy Gage, etc...  Take a little carbine williams kinda guy's idea who had zero production ability, turn it over to the guys that are used to cranking out a zillion of anything, have large industrial facilities, and poof, we've got 12 dollar greaseguns, not five thousand dollar bolt rifles...  I'd truly like to see some of the good idea guns that are out there at tens of thousands of dollars a copy get quoted out in 25,000 piece lots (to be delivered in two months!) by a Boeing or GM or someone.  I'll bet there's some merit there over buying boutique manufactured hot rod guns from a small arms company with 30 overworked & underpaid employees that subcontracts to some shop in some foriegn country  for their raw castings, etc.

>In all fairness to the Army and ARDEC in particular, the new CQB Kit program for the M-4A1 should be cited.  Efforts by others in the Army to look at cost effective solutions for the SASS ala M-14, are another example.  Same goes with the recent contract award for a rebuild of the M2HB.

                       ***I'd say the Army is best at this, reference the things you said, and also the DMR, the MiniDMR, the uparmored Humvees, etc.  They are pretty good at 'making do' very well.  I'm not going to put in a public forum who I think is better at spending money with their friends.   :)

4.  The larger companies also have the (fiscal) resources to simply lobby/get in the government's face and promote their wares to the extent the little guy cannot match.  For the larger firms, it's nothing to gt on a plane, go up to Picatinny and spend three days promoting an agenda/product...and of course, take LTC X and SES Y out to dinner and here's a free t-shirt.  Then there's the infamous vacations in the Carib....

                          ****I have always treasured this quote from a fellow DM as we were discussing a solicitation that was quite obviously sewn up for a certain small arms manufcturer:  "How do I know the deal was crooked? I'm a competing vendor and even *I* got free Disney tickets!"

The Carib vacation... they leave the credit card on the table for a little 'walking around' money, in case you need groceries or some jewelery for the wife while you're down there, don't they?

:)


Kel

Tag.

Quoted: Just picked the latest copy of Special Weapons for Military & Police which mentions the SASS program in their story on the Armalite AR-10(T) Magnum .300 RSAUM. While this program is only mentioned breifly in the beginning of the article it does say "Although the Army's requirement states that the new rifle will be chambered for .308, this requirement is not carved in stone and is subject to change as the military requirement evolves."

They already make the T in .308, and thats what i hear the entered.

mach6 & kel,

Brutal, frustrating, and accurate...

Quoted: mach6 & kel, Brutal, frustrating, and accurate...

============
Thanks Doc, appreciate your thoughts and your efforts in the small arms community.  

coldblue - can you tell us what length barrel the KAC submission used?

Quoted: coldblue - can you tell us what length barrel the KAC submission used? community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/icons/icon5.gif

Our SR-XM110 Model is basically a Mk 11 Mod 0 in "dark earth" color with a flash suppressor (req'd by the Army) and an adjustable length buttstock (desired by the Army), and a scope with illuminated reticle (req'd) and 1/2 moa elevation clicks (desired).  The free-floating barrel rail forend is a long SR-25 model URX.  The folding front sight (req'd) actually is the last few top rail end grooves that hindge "up" when used (desired).  The upper receivers are from our new forgings, so the case deflector is integral to the upper receiver.

So the actual barrel length is 20" like the parent Mk 11.

I will post pictures soon...

Quoted: I will post pictures soon...

Tagged!

Quoted: Now, this is INDEED interesting!!!!! I hope you guys win!!!! I just hope that whatever the new sniper system will be like, it will based on an AR platform!!!

First off and most importantly, I hope who ever has the best system wins. Our guys deserve the best and that's all that matters

Assuming KAC is only one of a number of entries that meets the requirements, works as needed and is completely reliable then no offense but I hope it isn't KAC that is selected.

I say that because if they win, you can forget about being able to buy it or any of the parts made specifically for it if you have any desire to make your own clone. If you look at KAC's history with civilian sales of AR\M16 parts they already make, you either can't buy them or their availability is so bad that you might as well say you can't buy them. When you can find them in the civilian market, they are over priced and are often out-of-spec and\or factory seconds that are not identified as such. No thanks

Just my joy-killing $.02 worth

Quoted: Our SR-XM110   Model is basically a Mk 11 Mod 0.....

Anyone else notice this coincidence??

Well SOCOM has what about 1800 of them...

Makes sence to keep a similar system

Quoted: When you can find them in the civilian market, they are over priced and are often out-of-spec and\or factory seconds that are not identified as such. No thanks

I would love to see some data to back up this BS. I have owned and seen alot of KAC products in my day and everyone of them has been perfect.

Quoted: Quoted: Just picked the latest copy of Special Weapons for Military & Police which mentions the SASS program in their story on the Armalite AR-10(T) Magnum .300 RSAUM. While this program is only mentioned breifly in the beginning of the article it does say "Although the Army's requirement states that the new rifle will be chambered for .308, this requirement is not carved in stone and is subject to change as the military requirement evolves." They already make the T in .308, and thats what i hear the entered.

I wonder what suppressor they used and what scope the sent with it???????

Dammit. This gives us another AR we'll have to build. First it was the M4, then the M-16A4, then the SPR, and now this! Gee, thanks US Army!!

Seriously though. I don't like the idea of replacing the M24. Call me old fashioned, but I think there's still a lot of life left in bolt action rifles in modern times, especially for 1000 yard work. I'm also surprised the requirement is for 7.62 NATO and not .300 Win Mag, a caliber that seems more efficient and effective at what it does. They could use 6.8 SPC as a DMR and have the .300 Win Mag for long range stuff beyond 600 yards. I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I'm curious to know the Army's reasons behind their requirements for another 7.62 NATO rifle.

Oh, I'm sure KAC will put in an excellent entry. Just make sure you guys start selling us URXs!

FWIW - the .308 is not the ideal 1000m people killer.  Even .300Win mag is not really leggy at that point - .338LM is a MUCH better cartridge for that work.

The 7.62mm gas guns work extraordinarily well inside the 800m envelope - past that get the .338LM bolt gun out.

Quoted: Quoted: When you can find them in the civilian market, they are over priced and are often out-of-spec and\or factory seconds that are not identified as such. No thanks I would love to see some data to back up this BS. I have owned and seen alot of KAC products in my day and everyone of them has been perfect.

I would love to see you eat shit and die but I guess we all don't always get what we want huh?

Do your own fucking research. You can start by talking to your buddy Grant as he's somebody that has alluded to basically the same thing on more than one occasion.

Have a good weekend VA_dingle-berry

Quoted: FWIW - the .308 is not the ideal 1000m people killer.  Even .300Win mag is not really leggy at that point -

Hi ya Kev,

But when one gets hit at a 1000, they are not too "leggy" from what I've seen!

Vic - true - No argument there -


Just that it seems to be a better idea to get specific precision platforms than try to use one platform to do many things.  Multiple close in tgts are not ideal with a boltgun - especially at calibres above .308.

IMHO if you want precision fire that far (the GPMG could do it the messy way) you want a round that will get out there and then some.

Kevin's philosophy is:
section/squad - 5.56mm one precision system per
Platoon - 7.62mm - 1 (or 2 ideally) precision system per.

.338LM and .50 are for the dedicated sniper assets.  When you care enough... blah blah
                 

hhmmmmmmm, a 180gr projectile @ 3000fps, hmmmmmmm, .300RSAUM, hhhmmmmmmmmm, wonder where I heard of that, hhhmmmmmmmmmm

Quoted: When you can find them in the civilian market, they are over priced and are often out-of-spec and\or factory seconds that are not identified as such. No thanks Just my joy-killing $.02 worth

cgv, never before heard of KAC offering out of spec and/or facory second products at all.  Not saying you're wrong but I've never heard of KAC being accused of this pratice.



5sub

Quoted: Quoted: When you can find them in the civilian market, they are over priced and are often out-of-spec and\or factory seconds that are not identified as such. No thanks Just my joy-killing $.02 worth cgv, never before heard of KAC offering out of spec and/or facory second products at all.  Not saying you're wrong but I've never heard of KAC being accused of this pratice. 5sub

And prior to things heating up in Afghanistan and Iraq, KAC items were plentiful on the market.  The only item that hasn't been available up until this point is the URX, and that seems to be because KAC is waiting on military selections.

Now, however, you can't even buy the (outstanding) KAC single point sling receiver mount.  My guess is they're all going to people who use them for much more serious work than the majority of us at AR15.com.  And that's fine by me.

Corey

EDITED to add that I'm anxiouslyl awaiting pics!

Get around Armor (i.e. Tankers) Troopers.  The 7.62MM does do a good job reliably out to 900 M.  Beyond that the .50 M-2 comes into place.  I realize that this is a machine gun and not necessarily a one shot kill.  However watching a lot of 7.62 tracers at that range demonstrates good accuracy and reliable performance in a reliable weapons system.

Better to be able to borrow ball ammo when you are out of match ammo from a trooper with a M240 or the coax from an M1A1 or M2 or M3 than walk around with an empty rifle in your lap.   I do appreciate the performance of a higher powdered rifle than a 7.62 but battlefield conditions demand a high level of simplicty and reliability.

This may be an opportunity for the bullet manufacturers to develop a "killer 7.62 round" within the design limits of this proposed system.

Quoted: Better to be able to borrow ball ammo when you are out of match ammo from a trooper with a M240 or the coax from an M1A1 or M2 or M3 than walk around with an empty rifle in your lap.   I do appreciate the performance of a higher powdered rifle than a 7.62 but battlefield conditions demand a high level of simplicty and reliability.

GOOD points.

Quoted: Quoted: Better to be able to borrow ball ammo when you are out of match ammo from a trooper with a M240 or the coax from an M1A1 or M2 or M3 than walk around with an empty rifle in your lap.   I do appreciate the performance of a higher powdered rifle than a 7.62 but battlefield conditions demand a high level of simplicty and reliability. GOOD points.

Show me a point in modern history when that ever became an event or even just a concern to a S/S team or even a Battalion's concern for its STA platoon.  

Sure, we taught how to cal the M40 Unertl with other than M118 ammo.  BUT, even the students, never mind a S/S or his AS, understood that if the Bat's supply of M118 didn't show up that there were bigger problems than not having the capability of slingin' a 173gr projectile @ 2550fps.  

Yepper, I'd say chow, water and an A2 with a 203 dry-humpin' its underbelly would be my next concern.  My AS would only had to worry about chow and water..............................hell, I was already humpin' his 203 ammo.  

tagged for pictures

Quoted: Do not start any crap in this thread. PERIOD. This is the only warning.

==============
Thank you; 'nuff said!  So let's get back to the interesting thread posted by Cold Blue.  It seemed to trail off with an unwarranted attack on KAC.  So --- how 'bout a discussion on the topic at hand, the small arms selection process and other candidate systems?  Spoke with some folks at Picatinny the other day on an unrelatd subject (HMG's), and it did slip out that there is an M14-based system in the pile.  No details, unfortuantely. Just hope it's not following the old tried-and-failed XM-21/M25-Camp Perry approach.    

Quoted: Thank you; 'nuff said!  So let's get back to the interesting thread posted by Cold Blue.  It seemed to trail off with an unwarranted attack on KAC.  So --- how 'bout a discussion on the topic at hand, the small arms selection process and other candidate systems?  Spoke with some folks at Picatinny the other day on an unrelatd subject (HMG's), and it did slip out that there is an M14-based system in the pile.  No details, unfortuantely. Just hope it's not following the old tried-and-failed XM-21/M25-Camp Perry approach.

(Red emphasis supplied by me.)

Did Troy Industries submit one of their M14/M1A rifles?

I thought I heard that they had one of their 7.62 rifles out there for some selection.

Corey

Quoted: Remingtons entry? www.ar15.com/content/articles/shot/2005/media/IMG_2053.jpg

No, that one would not meet requirements, in that it is a turn bolt.  My understanding is that Remington submitted this DPMS rifle:

Quoted: FWIW - the .308 is not the ideal 1000m people killer.  Even .300Win mag is not really leggy at that point - .338LM is a MUCH better cartridge for that work. The 7.62mm gas guns work extraordinarily well inside the 800m envelope - past that get the .338LM bolt gun out.

Crap, I forgot all about that caliber. Heck, just use 6.8 SPC and .338 Lapua then!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just picked the latest copy of Special Weapons for Military & Police which mentions the SASS program in their story on the Armalite AR-10(T) Magnum .300 RSAUM. While this program is only mentioned breifly in the beginning of the article it does say "Although the Army's requirement states that the new rifle will be chambered for .308, this requirement is not carved in stone and is subject to change as the military requirement evolves." They already make the T in .308, and thats what i hear the entered. I wonder what suppressor they used and what scope the sent with it???????

I would have used a surefire and leopold.

The Government sent us (KAC) notice that they will be here on April 4th for a "Pre-Award Survey."
Anyone out there know of any other companies with such a notice?

I think its kind of remarkable that barely 14 days after our five sample SASS's were delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground (along with those of other companies I assume), that the Government is conducting such Pre-Award Surveys so quickly.  Our read of this is that there is an even higher priority need for such 7.62, semi-auto, precision rifles out there than we thought.

And as we barely have 10 days to get ready for the Survey, well I guess you know I'll be pretty busy.

Congrats! Hope all goes well!

Quoted: The Government sent us (KAC) notice that they will be here on April 4th for a "Pre-Award Survey." Anyone out there know of any other companies with such a notice? I think its kind of remarkable that barely 14 days after our five sample SASS's were delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground (along with those of other companies I assume), that the Government is conducting such Pre-Award Surveys so quickly.  Our read of this is that there is an even higher priority need for such 7.62, semi-auto, precision rifles out there than we thought. And as we barely have 10 days to get ready for the Survey, well I guess you know I'll be pretty busy.

Good times.

Quoted: ......This may be an opportunity for the bullet manufacturers to develop a "killer 7.62 round" within the design limits of this proposed system.

=============================
They are, but the round under development privately is intended principally for use in suppressed machineguns (as in MK46/SAWs, MK48/M240s).  It will work super as an AP round in the forthcoming 7.62mm SASS, BTW.  Testing is well underway with one of the candidate systems.  Picatinny will be stunned.

Quoted: The Government sent us (KAC) notice that they will be here on April 4th for a "Pre-Award Survey." Anyone out there know of any other companies with such a notice? I think its kind of remarkable that barely 14 days after our five sample SASS's were delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground (along with those of other companies I assume), that the Government is conducting such Pre-Award Surveys so quickly.  Our read of this is that there is an even higher priority need for such 7.62, semi-auto, precision rifles out there than we thought. And as we barely have 10 days to get ready for the Survey, well I guess you know I'll be pretty busy.

=====================
That is indeed most odd in my experience, as I used to be an Army Acquisition Corps officer before retirement and then being recalled a while back.  Frankly, I think this was KAC's contract to lose and that the entire down-select process with regards to th XM-110 is merely a a paper drill (fait accompli).  They want your system pure and simple. However, the DFARS requires this kabuki dance in order to keep everything from ending up in the IG's office, Capitol Hill and ultimate the court system. Sound familiar?

On the other hand, operational necessity could be a driving factor -- but I'm a tad skeptical that urgent fielding requirements would be the sole cause to move so quickly on the Pre-Award Survey.  With that in mind, I would press the Pre-Survey team really hard, and I mean push the envelope here, as to exactly what testing they have accomplished in the last two weeks.  Their answers will determine just how much is just theater.  If all they say is solcitation documentation/spec/certs compliance checking, weights and measures, packaging, blah, blah...you'll have your answer.   Also, pay close attention to any references to an accelerated delivery schedule. If that's the case, then you'll know it's yours...if I were a betting man.

Quoted: Our read of this is that there is an even higher priority need for such 7.62, semi-auto, precision rifles out there than we thought.

Your read is absolutey correct.  Not many of these types out there in any numbers.  I'm just suprised it took this long, but then again I'm not....It seems it ALWAYS takes some border line catastrophe to get the govy to act.  I truly pray this wasn't the case for this piece of gear.

Ok for you guys that don't understand.. They want .308/7.62 for a reason. Its all about versitility. This program in my opinion is a total waste. They shoul be sending back m14 or refiting new m21. Its going to shoot just as good as any .308 out there and is more reliable than an AR. Insead of wasting money on this program just give me my gear that I should have been isused and stop throwing money into programs that dont need it nearly as bad. I agrre a .50 or a .338LM would be a much beter round... but that would go against the armys policy. Stupid..simple. There are already to many idiots in the ranks and this wont help.

Okay - please explain why it is easier?

To rebuild (and yes they need rebuilding) the M14's to match spec (which then cough and gag in the desert...)
To train troops on them
To train armourers to upkeep them.


Or issue a system that is 99% of what they got now? and it works...

Maybe listen to what Sinsiter Dave and the tothers have to sy on the topic first
/rant ends

coldblue - great to hear!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tag

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm curious to whom ALL submitted entries into this competition? ***Armalite, Bushmaster, Remington/DPMS, KAC, DSA should all be there (at least said they would).  A dark horse or two can usually be expected, but not as many of the real small guys can jump through the paperwork hoops.  My understanding was FN, Cobb, and a couple others had plans to do this but were on the fence.  There will be some proof-of-concept rifles 'submitted' by a military component, and they basically set the bar, ie. "If we could do this good with building up off the shelf parts, done cheap - these pricey bidded rifles had better rock better than ours."  There are simply a LOT of fish in the water (potential contracts/new systems being purchased or built up)  right now, and no one firearms company can pursue them all... It would be nice to see Remington in on the game. Lots of new players and some good ideas.  Should be some interesting accessories coming out of this as well. I'm not very involved with this go-round so am more or less enjoying the show.    :) Kel =============== The points brought out above cannot be overstated for a host of reasons.  Smaller companies, often with truly cost-effective and just plain better ideas, more than not cannot go through all the paperwork drills required.  Both the USMC and NSWC-Crane are notorious for this, with ARDEC running a close third.  There are several reasons for the huge paperwork drill, some Machiavellian, some bureaucratic: 1) By creating a a huge paperwork hurdle the proponent can effectively weed out the little guy.  The military knows the little guy can often create a better mousetrap, but is fearful that the small company cannot produce the end-item in the quantities required over time, or provide the life-cycle support needed.  Likewise, there is a genuine and well-founded fear that the smaller company cannot maintain the required QA/QC regime over the life of the contract..  There is also the fear that the business model of the smaller company may not be able to support the required expansion required by the SASS contract, for example, let alone SCAR. Knowing that a shop has only a dozen or so employees, the proponent can simply bury him with a 128 page requirements document, as was the case with the SCAR-L/H.

Is this not a valid concern?  Have you ever been in a development cycle where a subcontracting vendor goes out of business and the project stalls for 8 months while a bunch of engineers reverse engineer the box and re-write the code and re-execute a bunch of earlier testing?  Granted, software is a different animal, but there are valid reasons why government has an interest in ensuring the selected KTR can perfrom over the life of the contract.  It ain't always fair but I'd sure as hell be leary of awarding a big ticket contract to a small business owner who may want to retire in 5 years and employs 10 people.

Sometimes I wonder if the only way the little guy gets noticed is if he wins a small contract and performs well.  Let him build his company up to where he can make the personnel and capital investments to compete with the big guys.  Or, just sell/license the rights to one of the big guys after they make a chunk of change.  

The Remington Rifle is a Semi-Auto. They were just informed of thier pre-award inspection to be conducted mid-April.

Every vendor recieved a pre-award survey.

if the XM110 program was KAC's to lose they wouldn't have held a solicatation. Fact is that everyone knows there are good systems out there which actually work.