AR Sponsor
Posted: 9/7/2009 9:16:10 AM EDT
|
US Army Chooses Aimpoint CompM4s Sight as New Close Combat Optic The Aimpoint folks sent out a press release ... I'm hearing that one was fought plumb down to the ground ... Good on all that competed. 
New Contract for 565,783 Optical Sights. Aimpoint, the originator and worldwide leader in electronic red dot sighting technology, has been awarded a new contract from the US Army for supply of up to 565,783 M68 Close Combat Optic rifle sights. The Aimpoint CompM4s was chosen following an extensive evaluation and competitive trial of available optical sights by the army's Research & Development Command (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. Aimpoint was the only manufacturer whose product fulfilled the army's rigourous testing criteria during this evaluation, and is the only manufacturer to be selected as a qualified vendor for this contract. Aimpoint Compm4s The sight chosen by the Army, the Aimpoint CompM4s, features a battery compartment positioned near the sight base, which gives the sight a streamlined profile and places the switch and battery in a more protected position. A ruggedized switch knob has been integrated as part of the battery compartment housing and features 7 night vision compatible settings and 9 daylight settings. The modular QRP2 mount maximizes product application for all M4 Carbines and M16 rifles, and eliminates the need for a separate mounting ring. The electronic components in the CompM4s include the latest ACETdiode circuitry, which allows the sight to run continuously for up to 8 years on a single battery, and features an internal voltage regulator that makes it possible to utilize any AA sized battery found worldwide for power. The sight features a 2 minute-of-angle (MOA) dot size, making it perfectly suited for use with Aimpoints 3X Magnifier (3XMag), Aimpoint Concealed Engagement Unit (CEU), and all generations of night vision devices. The CompM4s is designed to function under hard use and extreme environmental conditions. Close Combat Optics Aimpoint products are specifically designed to outperform all other alternatives - the troops count on us to be better said Lennart Ljungfelt, President of Aimpoint AB. Since 1997, Aimpoint has proven itself to be a reliable and trusted supplier to the US Armed Forces, and we are proud to continue our twelve year legacy as the supplier of the M68 Close Combat Optic to the US Army, US Navy, and US Air Force. Aimpoint is the only manufacturer to be type classified for production of the M68 Close Combat Optic, and has consistently met the Army's stringent requirements for quality control and on-time deliveries. Over 750,000 Aimpoint sights have already been supplied to the US Military. Aimpoint products are used by military customers, law enforcement agencies and sportsmen worldwide. |
|
Quoted:
Love Aimpoints...just wish an AMERICAN owned manufacturer would have won this huge contract. Plenty of jobs going to or staying in Sweden on this deal. Are they sending any troops to stand with ours? Don't know about none of that ... I do wish they'd a gone with our mounts ... ... but alas, Uncle Sam decided to stay with TBK* ML * TBK = The Big Knob |
|
Quoted:
Interesting! Why didn't they go with the T1 to shave off some weight? But if 2MOA was a requirement, I can understand the M4S. T1 is a special optic, the gov wanted something to standardize in the field. I am not bashing the M4, but its not the best Aimpoint makes nor is it the best out there. Its simply the best to hand out to the troops. The press release makes it sound like the M4 is the winner due to it being a better optic then others, when actually it was just the best as a standardize optic in a price bucket. A.R.M.S. doesnt win contracts because they have the best mounts in the market... Any comment on that LaRue...lol. Most who know optics would go with the T1 over a M4 or M3, but they may change that tune if wanting to equip 500K troops on a limited budget. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting! Why didn't they go with the T1 to shave off some weight? But if 2MOA was a requirement, I can understand the M4S. T1 is a special optic, the gov wanted something to standardize in the field. I am not bashing the M4, but its not the best Aimpoint makes nor is it the best out there. Its simply the best to hand out to the troops. The press release makes it sound like the M4 is the winner due to it being a better optic then others, when actually it was just the best as a standardize optic in a price bucket. A.R.M.S. doesnt win contracts because they have the best mounts in the market... Any comment on that LaRue...lol. Most who know optics would go with the T1 over a M4 or M3, but they may change that tune if wanting to equip 500K troops on a limited budget. Meh, I don't know that the Massachusetts outfit you refer to has ever "won" a .mil mount contract, in the true sense of the word. Us ? We've got about every night vision product out there equipped with our mounts, but not one has been on a mil contract direct to us. We get the occasional mount order on a gov't PO, but they refer to their POs as "contracts". The true sense of the word is a contract won in competition, extending over a quantity, either set or indefinite, sometimes known as an IDIQ. Either way, it means Uncle Sam is sending folks in, crawling around, extra folks to over-see the "contract" etc. We get our POs from the OEM. LOL, some muffler folks in Georgia haven't been able to make that distinction, without lawyers getting involved. So, to answer your question, I may be wrong, but like us, I bet they've never won a .mil contract for mounts. 
|
|
I dislike the aimpoint...but it is a good optic
I HATE, HATE, HATE the QRP mount it is utter junk, the knob gets caught on the webbing of the Molle gear and can get bent or worse broken off. I have seen some stripped out and unable to hold thier position on the mount. its a shame Aimpoint has such a great rep thier are better optics made both in America and Israel. But those companies don't spend as much on marketing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting! Why didn't they go with the T1 to shave off some weight? But if 2MOA was a requirement, I can understand the M4S. T1 is a special optic, the gov wanted something to standardize in the field. I am not bashing the M4, but its not the best Aimpoint makes nor is it the best out there. Its simply the best to hand out to the troops. The press release makes it sound like the M4 is the winner due to it being a better optic then others, when actually it was just the best as a standardize optic in a price bucket. A.R.M.S. doesnt win contracts because they have the best mounts in the market... Any comment on that LaRue...lol. Most who know optics would go with the T1 over a M4 or M3, but they may change that tune if wanting to equip 500K troops on a limited budget. Meh, I don't know that the Massachusetts outfit you refer to has ever "won" a .mil mount contract, in the true sense of the word. Us ? We've got about every night vision product out there equipped with our mounts, but not one has been on a mil contract direct to us. We get the occasional mount order on a gov't PO, but they refer to their POs as "contracts". The true sense of the word is a contract won in competition, extending over a quantity, either set or indefinite, sometimes known as an IDIQ. Either way, it means Uncle Sam is sending folks in, crawling around, extra folks to over-see the "contract" etc. We get our POs from the OEM. LOL, some muffler folks in Georgia haven't been able to make that distinction, without lawyers getting involved. So, to answer your question, I may be wrong, but like us, I bet they've never won a .mil contract for mounts.
Fair enough! Most folks don't realize that there are all sorts of ways to do business with the government besides a competed solicitation. Sole-source procurements are always nice to obtain. When I worked for a Federal Contractor, we figured that our procurement regs (DEAR & FAR) cost us about 15-30% over retail for the hassle-factor that we imposed. If you aren't having to deal directly with .gov or .mil, you're way ahead! |
|
Quoted:
I dislike the aimpoint...but it is a good optic I HATE, HATE, HATE the QRP mount it is utter junk, the knob gets caught on the webbing of the Molle gear and can get bent or worse broken off. I have seen some stripped out and unable to hold thier position on the mount. its a shame Aimpoint has such a great rep thier are better optics made both in America and Israel. But those companies don't spend as much on marketing. ??? Just curious as to what optics you are referring to? |
|
Quoted:
I dislike the aimpoint...but it is a good optic I HATE, HATE, HATE the QRP mount it is utter junk, the knob gets caught on the webbing of the Molle gear and can get bent or worse broken off. I have seen some stripped out and unable to hold thier position on the mount. its a shame Aimpoint has such a great rep thier are better optics made both in America and Israel. But those companies don't spend as much on marketing. You must referring to the optic made by L3. The same optic which failed to meet the mininum standards and was not selected, which caused L3 to appeal and cry foul, holding up the process and keeping new optics from being purchased and issued. I know you didn't like the M68 you were issued while you were in Iraq (?) with the 307th En and that you prefer the EoTech. Sorry, but the EoTech failed. There are better mounts than the QRP, but it works and the optic doesn't fall off the weapon. If I remember correctly that is exactly what the EoTechs did during field testing. Oh well. The reason you probably saw stripped out QRP mounts is most likely because the user over-torqued the bolt. Joe always trys to get things as tight as possible..... |
|
Mr LaRue is correct, aquisition of gear, even in pallets doesn't mean you've won any contract.
In order to "win" a contract, the contracting division in question needs to write a contract up and then open bidding. Then, all certified companies in the pool can attempt to win the bid, which usually means lowest cost. Unless somone in command or contracting happens to have a predetermined company on mind to be awarded the contract Technically, all purchases have "contracts" but they are just order forms and sales reciepts Aimpoint got it because they are bombproof and easy to use. Battery life, more than likely was not considered, as batteries are changed daily or weekly at tops |
|
Quoted:
Mr LaRue is correct, aquisition of gear, even in pallets doesn't mean you've won any contract. In order to "win" a contract, the contracting division in question needs to write a contract up and then open bidding. Then, all certified companies in the pool can attempt to win the bid, which usually means lowest cost. Unless somone in command or contracting happens to have a predetermined company on mind to be awarded the contract Technically, all purchases have "contracts" but they are just order forms and sales reciepts Aimpoint got it because they are bombproof and easy to use. Battery life, more than likely was not considered, as batteries are changed daily or weekly at tops They also do not have an automatic shut-off like EoTechs. EO's are known to shut themselves off to conserve battery life. The problem is that when these weapons are on patrol, in a squad car or on the rack and immediate action is required, operators and officers are left with no reticle. Aimpoint's ACET technology is truly innovative and allows the optics to be left on for 5-8 years depending on the model in question. I have never turned any of my personal Aimpoints off and I know they will be ready to go if needed at a moment's notice. This is why I feel comfortable selling them all day long to folks who go into harm's way. I know they will not let them down. I cannot tell you how many times we have heard about problems in the field with the Michigan-made sight. Not to mention, the problems we have had with them in the field and even at the range. While it would be nice if Aimpoint was made in the US, they aren't. But the bottom line is that they work all the time. At the end of the day, I'm going to use and recommend what works when going into harm's way. The rest of the components on my fighting gun are US-made. As for the MARS sight; it is also a very innovative sight. By bundling the IR laser and red dot into one package, you save weight and real estate on the weapon. I have had extensive experience with this optic, though, and there are some issues. Battery life is not great and the height over bore preclude the ability to cowitness your irons. Sure, the window can be used as make-shift ghost ring if you are really in pinch, but I would not feel comfortable using this method past 10 yards (and that's pushing it). Also the actuation lever is not as well-protected as I would like and it has inadvertantly been moved during training as it brushes up against gear. The comment about the QRP mounts is well taken, but the QRP is not the only mount in town (Aimpoint even has their own throw lever design that directly replaces the QRP2 that comes with the M4s). I realize that some hard-ass armorers might not let individuals swap mounts, but there are many instances where you can work the system depending on who you know. At the end of the day, though, the throw levers can still be adjusted by the user while the QRP2 is fool-proof. There is no way that a soldier can inadvertantly istall a loose QRP2 that results in zero shift as long as the knob is torqued to the click. These factors do come into play when deciding on mass-issue items. Soldiers love to finger their gear and less opportunity there is for something to be played with , the better. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mr LaRue is correct, aquisition of gear, even in pallets doesn't mean you've won any contract. In order to "win" a contract, the contracting division in question needs to write a contract up and then open bidding. Then, all certified companies in the pool can attempt to win the bid, which usually means lowest cost. Unless somone in command or contracting happens to have a predetermined company on mind to be awarded the contract Technically, all purchases have "contracts" but they are just order forms and sales reciepts Aimpoint got it because they are bombproof and easy to use. Battery life, more than likely was not considered, as batteries are changed daily or weekly at tops They also do not have an automatic shut-off like EoTechs. EO's are known to shut themselves off to conserve battery life. The problem is that when these weapons are on patrol, in a squad car or on the rack and immediate action is required, operators and officers are left with no reticle. Aimpoint's ACET technology is truly innovative and allows the optics to be left on for 5-8 years depending on the model in question. I have never turned any of my personal Aimpoints off and I know they will be ready to go if needed at a moment's notice. This is why I feel comfortable selling them all day long to folks who go into harm's way. I know they will not let them down. I cannot tell you how many times we have heard about problems in the field with the Michigan-made sight. Not to mention, the problems we have had with them in the field and even at the range. While it would be nice if Aimpoint was made in the US, they aren't. But the bottom line is that they work all the time. At the end of the day, I'm going to use and recommend what works when going into harm's way. The rest of the components on my fighting gun are US-made. As for the MARS sight; it is also a very innovative sight. By bundling the IR laser and red dot into one package, you save weight and real estate on the weapon. I have had extensive experience with this optic, though, and there are some issues. Battery life is not great and the height over bore preclude the ability to cowitness your irons. Sure, the window can be used as make-shift ghost ring if you are really in pinch, but I would not feel comfortable using this method past 10 yards (and that's pushing it). Also the actuation lever is not as well-protected as I would like and it has inadvertantly been moved during training as it brushes up against gear. The comment about the QRP mounts is well taken, but the QRP is not the only mount in town (Aimpoint even has their own throw lever design that directly replaces the QRP2 that comes with the M4s). I realize that some hard-ass armorers might not let individuals swap mounts, but there are many instances where you can work the system depending on who you know. At the end of the day, though, the throw levers can still be adjusted by the user while the QRP2 is fool-proof. There is no way that a soldier can inadvertantly istall a loose QRP2 that results in zero shift as long as the knob is torqued to the click. These factors do come into play when deciding on mass-issue items. Soldiers love to finger their gear and less opportunity there is for something to be played with , the better. Hang on there cowboy, this here thread is about kudos to the winner of the CCO competition ... not "Let's bash L-3". If it's all the same to you, I'd like to wrestle this train back onto the dang tracks.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mr LaRue is correct, aquisition of gear, even in pallets doesn't mean you've won any contract. In order to "win" a contract, the contracting division in question needs to write a contract up and then open bidding. Then, all certified companies in the pool can attempt to win the bid, which usually means lowest cost. Unless somone in command or contracting happens to have a predetermined company on mind to be awarded the contract Technically, all purchases have "contracts" but they are just order forms and sales reciepts Aimpoint got it because they are bombproof and easy to use. Battery life, more than likely was not considered, as batteries are changed daily or weekly at tops They also do not have an automatic shut-off like EoTechs. EO's are known to shut themselves off to conserve battery life. The problem is that when these weapons are on patrol, in a squad car or on the rack and immediate action is required, operators and officers are left with no reticle. Aimpoint's ACET technology is truly innovative and allows the optics to be left on for 5-8 years depending on the model in question. I have never turned any of my personal Aimpoints off and I know they will be ready to go if needed at a moment's notice. This is why I feel comfortable selling them all day long to folks who go into harm's way. I know they will not let them down. I cannot tell you how many times we have heard about problems in the field with the Michigan-made sight. Not to mention, the problems we have had with them in the field and even at the range. While it would be nice if Aimpoint was made in the US, they aren't. But the bottom line is that they work all the time. At the end of the day, I'm going to use and recommend what works when going into harm's way. The rest of the components on my fighting gun are US-made. As for the MARS sight; it is also a very innovative sight. By bundling the IR laser and red dot into one package, you save weight and real estate on the weapon. I have had extensive experience with this optic, though, and there are some issues. Battery life is not great and the height over bore preclude the ability to cowitness your irons. Sure, the window can be used as make-shift ghost ring if you are really in pinch, but I would not feel comfortable using this method past 10 yards (and that's pushing it). Also the actuation lever is not as well-protected as I would like and it has inadvertantly been moved during training as it brushes up against gear. The comment about the QRP mounts is well taken, but the QRP is not the only mount in town (Aimpoint even has their own throw lever design that directly replaces the QRP2 that comes with the M4s). I realize that some hard-ass armorers might not let individuals swap mounts, but there are many instances where you can work the system depending on who you know. At the end of the day, though, the throw levers can still be adjusted by the user while the QRP2 is fool-proof. There is no way that a soldier can inadvertantly istall a loose QRP2 that results in zero shift as long as the knob is torqued to the click. These factors do come into play when deciding on mass-issue items. Soldiers love to finger their gear and less opportunity there is for something to be played with , the better. Hang on there cowboy, this here thread is about kudos to the winner of the CCO competition ... not "Let's bash L-3". If it's all the same to you, I'd like to wrestle this train back onto the dang tracks.
|
|
No bashing here as we report the facts as best we know here at TNVC.
Aimpoint won the contract in April 2008 against all other competitors. The Aimpoint CompM4 and CompM4s sights were the only sights to survive the 6000 round durability test. One of the competitors protested and then sued to have their sight retested because it failed during the testing. They were allowed a retest and it failed again. Bottom line is that the best sight was chosen after nearly 18 months of having the contract delayed. It would appear that some companies only care about corporate profits and what may not be in the best interests for the soldiers. Also, so the folks know, the Micro T-1 was not submitted for this solicitation as the Army requirement was for the sight to use an AA battery. When I look into our crystal ball, (I have said this for a long time), the T1 will be the one to replace all older MRD’s in due time. With the trend for lighter weapon platforms, along with an MRDS that can perform two roles, one as a primary and one as a backup to a magnified optic, the choice is pretty clear. Also not widely known, awhile back Aimpoint was also awarded a $9.88 million IDIQ contract from the U.S. Army, RDECOM Acquisition Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground for supply of M68 Magnifiers for use with the company’s M68CCO red-dot sights. Here is another tid bit of information. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20090802.aspx The Unlikely Winner August 2, 2009: Most U.S. combat troops have been carrying primary optics (scopes) on their weapons for well over 10 years. In that time, a couple of different optics have emerged been modified and standardized. The first, Aimpoint, a Swedish Optics company retains the honor of having supplied more military optics worldwide than any other manufacturer. For the U.S. this comes in the form of the red dot M68 Close Combat Optical (CCO) This design has gone through several refinements over the years and is now standard issue as the M4S. Second, is EOTech Holographic Weapons Sight (HWS). This has gained ground in recent years, and its 553 version was selected as the primary sight of Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Recently, a poll was taken from soldiers in the field about which optic was preferred. The winner is neither the M4S nor HWS, but the Micro T1. A design introduced by Aimpoint in 2008. Featuring a 2.4 length, 1.6 inch diameter and 2.4 inch height with mount, and weighing a mere 3.7 ounces, the sight can be mounted not only on rifles and carbines but pistols as well. Its diminutive size and weight quickly won over users carrying weapons typically mounting a laser/infra-red designator and flashlight. Such a collection of gear, with standard scope and full magazine, tops out at over 9 pounds. With the Micro T1, up to 7 of those ounces are lost. The Micro T1 boasts many features commonplace with its larger brethren, such as a 5 year battery life, extreme durability, waterproofing to 80 feet and compatibility with all Picatinney rail systems. Other mount designs have emerged including one enabling use of a bullet drop dial when used in the 5.56mmm or 7.62mm weapons. Two civilian versions called the H1 and R1 are designed for hunting and pistol matches respectively. EOTech isn’t resting. It recently introduced a miniaturized version of its HWS with a 600 hour battery life while maintaining all the hardiness and user interface as its full size derivatives. –– Mike Perry Hope this helps and no bashing here, just trying to get the facts straight. 
Vic |
|
Quoted:
Hang on there cowboy, this here thread is about kudos to the winner of the CCO competition ... not "Let's bash L-3". If it's all the same to you, I'd like to wrestle this train back onto the dang tracks.
Quoted:
LOL, some muffler folks in Georgia haven't been able to make that distinction, without lawyers getting involved. I guess it's okay for the OP to take his own thread off on a bash. Once again, it's old. You've turned more people away from your own products that you have from AACs products. |
|
I'll admit, it took me a while to realize how 'big' the T-1's would be, but even I have to admit that it's the best non-magnifying optic out there right now, especially when paired with the right mount. I guess the lack of ARD out of the box is what killed that.
Either way, both companies have elevated their game - the complaints about the 551/552 are getting resolved in a big way, L3's current optics are extremely nice. I can't wait to see what Aimpoint comes out with next (please collaboration for variable zoom optic) |
|
Quoted:
<snip> I guess it's okay for the OP to take his own thread off on a bash. Once again, it's old. You've turned more people away from your own products that you have from AACs products. Says you. 
Makes sense though, seeing as how we're just going and blowing, and not outright hauling the mail. 
But to clarify, I wasn't aware that your Georgia Smoochers were competing for the CCO ? |
|
Quoted:
No bashing here as we report the facts as best we know here at TNVC. Aimpoint won the contract in April 2008 against all other competitors. The Aimpoint CompM4 and CompM4s sights were the only sights to survive the 6000 round durability test. One of the competitors protested and then sued to have their sight retested because it failed during the testing. They were allowed a retest and it failed again. Bottom line is that the best sight was chosen after nearly 18 months of having the contract delayed. It would appear that some companies only care about corporate profits and what may not be in the best interests for the soldiers. Also, so the folks know, the Micro T-1 was not submitted for this solicitation as the Army requirement was for the sight to use an AA battery. When I look into our crystal ball, (I have said this for a long time), the T1 will be the one to replace all older MRD’s in due time. With the trend for lighter weapon platforms, along with an MRDS that can perform two roles, one as a primary and one as a backup to a magnified optic, the choice is pretty clear. Also not widely known, awhile back Aimpoint was also awarded a $9.88 million IDIQ contract from the U.S. Army, RDECOM Acquisition Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground for supply of M68 Magnifiers for use with the company’s M68CCO red-dot sights. Here is another tid bit of information. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20090802.aspx The Unlikely Winner August 2, 2009: Most U.S. combat troops have been carrying primary optics (scopes) on their weapons for well over 10 years. In that time, a couple of different optics have emerged been modified and standardized. The first, Aimpoint, a Swedish Optics company retains the honor of having supplied more military optics worldwide than any other manufacturer. For the U.S. this comes in the form of the red dot M68 Close Combat Optical (CCO) This design has gone through several refinements over the years and is now standard issue as the M4S. Second, is EOTech Holographic Weapons Sight (HWS). This has gained ground in recent years, and its 553 version was selected as the primary sight of Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Recently, a poll was taken from soldiers in the field about which optic was preferred. The winner is neither the M4S nor HWS, but the Micro T1. A design introduced by Aimpoint in 2008. Featuring a 2.4 length, 1.6 inch diameter and 2.4 inch height with mount, and weighing a mere 3.7 ounces, the sight can be mounted not only on rifles and carbines but pistols as well. Its diminutive size and weight quickly won over users carrying weapons typically mounting a laser/infra-red designator and flashlight. Such a collection of gear, with standard scope and full magazine, tops out at over 9 pounds. With the Micro T1, up to 7 of those ounces are lost. The Micro T1 boasts many features commonplace with its larger brethren, such as a 5 year battery life, extreme durability, waterproofing to 80 feet and compatibility with all Picatinney rail systems. Other mount designs have emerged including one enabling use of a bullet drop dial when used in the 5.56mmm or 7.62mm weapons. Two civilian versions called the H1 and R1 are designed for hunting and pistol matches respectively. EOTech isn’t resting. It recently introduced a miniaturized version of its HWS with a 600 hour battery life while maintaining all the hardiness and user interface as its full size derivatives. –– Mike Perry Hope this helps and no bashing here, just trying to get the facts straight.
Vic Thanks for the info. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/04/lehman-brothers-aftershocks-28-days Since Lehman Brothers is one of the "L"s in L3 Eotech, and helped destroy the world economy, which thus helped usher in the age of the Obama, I'm disinclined to consider their products. I find it also interesting the Pat Rogers reports he only gets about 400 hours of battery life out of Eotech despite the 1100 hour claim by the manufacturer. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=369513&page=3 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> I guess it's okay for the OP to take his own thread off on a bash. Once again, it's old. You've turned more people away from your own products that you have from AACs products. Says you.
Makes sense though, seeing as how we're just going and blowing, and not outright hauling the mail.
But to clarify, I wasn't aware that your Georgia Smoochers were competing for the CCO ? Having mentioned "Muffler folks in Georgia" did make it sound like a silencer mfr based out of GA. I myself was wondering if you were referring to AAC. Personally, I feel the new COMPM4 is too large and heavy for what it does. It's rugged and a great value, but just feels larger than what it needs to be. As far as the knob and mount, the knob is too damn fat and sticks out too damn far... I would love a LaRue mount for one of these, at least as an item that could be ordered with an NSN if not OEM. As for LaRue mounts on mil equipment... all the AN/PAS13's or 22's Ive come across were on LaRue mounts and never had a problem. The lights (the brand is obvious) have throw lever mounts from another mfr X.X.X.'s and I've seen more than a couple of the levers break under regular use. |
|
SNIP
Thanks for the info. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/04/lehman-brothers-aftershocks-28-days Since Lehman Brothers is one of the "L"s in L3 Eotech, and helped destroy the world economy, which thus helped usher in the age of the Obama, I'm disinclined to consider their products. I find it also interesting the Pat Rogers reports he only gets about 400 hours of battery life out of Eotech despite the 1100 hour claim by the manufacturer. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=369513&page=3 [/quote] Glad we could help. Vic |
|
The below information while long (sorry) is a good read on the decision when L3 sued in Federal Claims Court in DC so that they could retest. The Judge allowed it and their sights failed the retest. Had this on the hard drive from awhile ago, and we thought it would be relevant here. Once again, no bashing here, just getting the facts out as best we can. Hope this helps.
Vic Decision Matter of: L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc. File: B-311453; B-311453.2 Date: July 14, 2008 W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., Daniel E. Chudd, Esq., and Damien C. Specht, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. Brian E. Toland, Esq., and Frank V. DiNicola, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's challenge to the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range based on the failure of its bid sample during testing to satisfy an "essential criteria" is denied, where the solicitation advised offerors that the failure to satisfy an "essential criteria" would result in elimination of the proposal from the competition, the agency's testing method was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation instructions, and the protester's complaint about the test failure was related to its inadequately written proposal. DECISION L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-07-R-0428, issued by the U.S. Army Materiel Command for "Close Combat Optics" to be used with M16A2 rifles. L-3 asserts that the agency performed flawed testing on its proposed sight and mount and improperly rejected its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP sought "Close Combat Optics," that is, optical sights with mounts, to be used as fire control devices on M16A2 rifles, M16A4 rifles, and M4 carbines. RFP sect. C.2. These systems were to be procured through award of a fixed-price indefinite"‘delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a 5-year base period with two 1-year option periods. Id. sect. B. The RFP instructed each offeror to submit a written proposal, as well as a bid sample that would be tested against numerous criteria described in the solicitation. The solicitation provided for award on a "best value" basis, considering the evaluation factors of bid sample, quality system, equipment/production, price, performance risk, and small disadvantaged business participation. With regard to the bid sample factor, which was the most important factor, offerors were advised that the bid samples first would be tested against 15 "essential criteria," each of which would be rated on a "pass/fail" basis, and only samples that passed all of the "essential criteria" would be tested against 7 additional "rated criteria." Id. sect. M para. B. In this regard, section M of the RFP stated in three places language essentially identical to the following: A failure in any one or more of the essential criteria as stated shall be cause for elimination from further consideration for award and [the] offeror[']s submission will not be further evaluated. Id. sect. M paras. A, C.1.0, C.1.1. At issue in this protest is the evaluation of optical sights for the M16A2 rifles. In response to the solicitation, seven proposals and bid samples from four offerors were submitted for the M16A2 rifles. With the bid samples, offerors were required to submit commercial off-the-shelf manuals, each of which included mounting instructions. RFP sect. L; Mounting Instructions. Six of the samples, including L-3's, failed the "endurance-live fire" test, which was one of the "essential criteria."[1] This test required that bid samples be mounted on the M16A2 rifle, withstand a 6,000 round endurance firing with no physical damage, and maintain a "zero within 1 Gunner's mil upon completion of [the] endurance test." Id. sect. M para. C.1.1.10. Based on this failure, the agency determined that L-3's sample was unacceptable and eliminated L"‘3's proposal from the competition. This protest followed. L-3 contends that the agency's endurance-live fire test was flawed. In this regard, the protester asserts that the only reason its optical sight sample failed the endurance-live fire test was because the agency failed to properly secure the locking nut that tightens the mount to the weapon. L-3 contends that the agency improperly hand"‘tightened the nut when it should have used a tool, such as a hex key, to secure the locking nut before conducting the test. L-3 asserts that it should have been "obvious" to the agency that a tool was required from the locking nut's design and that it is "common knowledge" in the industry that a tool is required for these types of locking nuts. Protest at 7-8. Our Office will review an allegedly improper technical evaluation of product samples to determine whether the evaluation was fair, reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. We will not make an independent determination of the merits of an offeror's proposal; rather, we will review the evaluation record to ensure that the agency's technical judgment has a rational basis and is consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., B-296516.2, B-296516.3, Mar. 17, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 63 at 5; Sun Chem. Corp., B-288466 et al., Oct. 17, 2001, 2001 CPD para.185 at 7. Here, the agency explains that the design of the locking nut (with "knurled" ridges) on the submitted bid sample suggested to it that hand-tightening was the appropriate tightening method,[2] and the agency further explains that its own experience has shown that over"‘tightening the locking nut with a tool can damage the optic or optic mount.[3] The agency also notes that each of the other offerors submitted mounting instructions that identified when hand-tightening was appropriate, when tools were required, what tool was to be used, and how to use the tool to tighten the particular nut, screw, or bolt. For example, when tools were required, offerors included specific instructions for what component the tool should be used with and, where appropriate, described the number of turns or amount of force to be applied.[4] Agency Report at 9, 11-12; Mounting Instructions. However, with respect to the optical sight for the M16A2 rifle, L-3's proposal failed to include any instruction that a tool was required; the proposal merely stated, "Secure the locking nut." Id. at 7-8; Mounting Instructions at 25. Without such an instruction, the agency or user could reasonably conclude that hand-tightening L"‘3's knurled ridge locking nut was the appropriate method to secure the sight mount.[5] As we have often stated, an offeror must submit an adequately written proposal or it runs the risk of having its proposal rejected as unacceptable. Dynamic Mktg. Servs., Inc., B-279697, July 13, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 84 at 6. Here, the complaint raised by L-3 concerning the endurance-live fire test was the result of its failure to identify how its locking nut was to be tightened, and not because of agency error. Under these circumstances, we cannot find the agency's testing approach unreasonable. [6] L-3 nevertheless asserts that its test failure was not design related, but was the result only of a "minor informational deficiency" that could have been corrected easily by asking L-3 whether a tool was required to properly tighten the nut. L-3 contends that given this minor issue and the fact that this was the only one of the "essential criteria" that its sample failed to satisfy, the agency should allow L"‘3 to correct the informational deficiency and repeat the pass/fail test, especially because the failure to do so resulted in the establishment of a competitive range of one. Supp. Protest and Comments at 9. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) permits an agency to limit the competitive range to only the "most highly rated proposals" and does not require that discussions be held with offerors that are not included in the competitive range.[7] FAR sections 15.306(c)(1), (d)(1). We have held that there is nothing inherently improper in a competitive range of one where the agency has a reasonable basis for its competitive range determination. M&M Investigations, Inc., B"‘299369.2, B-299369.3, Oct. 24, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 200 at 3. As indicated above, this RFP clearly established the ground rules for testing the samples as well as the consequences––"elimination from further consideration for award"––for offerors whose proposed bid sample failed any one of the 15 "essential criteria." Given these ground rules, we cannot find unreasonable the agency's decision to exclude L-3's proposal and bid sample from the competitive range where, as here, the proposal failed an "essential criteria" test and the only complaint about this failure is related to L-3's inadequately drafted proposal, and not because of agency error or flawed testing.  See California Microwave, Inc., B-229489, Feb. 24, 1988, 88-1 CPD para. 189 at 6.
L-3 also asks us to consider that the optical sight of the only offeror in the competitive range (Aimpoint) experienced test failures, which require design changes that L"‘3 asserts are more significant than the informational deficiency that caused L-3's test failure. However, the test failures experienced by the Aimpoint bid sample occurred with the "rated criteria," which, as defined by the RFP, were only evaluated after the bid sample passed all of the "essential criteria"; Aimpont's bid sample passed all of the "essential criteria." In contrast, L-3's failure occurred under the "essential criteria" and required no further evaluation. The agency has persuasively explained why the Aimpoint test failures were easily correctible without a need to retest the optical sight under these "essential criteria," and, since the RFP allowed for discussions to occur on "rated criteria" failures, we find no error in the agency's actions here. In sum, we find that L-3's proposal was properly eliminated from the competitive range in accordance with the unambiguous ground rules of the RFP. The protest is denied. Gary L. Kepplinger General Counsel –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– [1] Four of the six samples that failed the endurance-live fire test also failed multiple other "essential criteria." Agency Report, Tab 6.1., Final Technical Evaluation, at 1-2. [2] We recognize, as L-3 points out, that five of the seven bid sample mounting instructions make some reference to using a tool, but none of these optical sights contained knurled ridge locking nuts of the type on L-3's optical sight. Thus, the fact that some offerors may have instructed that tools be used does not evidence that the agency should have inferred that a tool should have been used to mount L"‘3's optical sight to the M16A2 rifle here. [3] L-3 disputes the agency's contention that over-tightening damages the optics system, but has provided no evidence to support its argument. [4] The offerors' mounting instructions also illustrate that each bid sample was uniquely designed and contained different parts and tightening requirements. In other words, no common approach or industry standard is apparent. [5] To the extent that L-3 challenges the agency's ability to consistently and rationally apply a hand"‘tightening method, the agency has explained the steps that it took to ensure consistency, and we find this approach to be reasonable. See Declaration of Optical Engineer, at 1-2. [6] L-3 asserts that flaws in the testing should have been evident because six of seven bid samples failed the endurance-live fire test, and because L-3's optical sight of the M4 carbine passed the test. Supp. Protest and Comments at 10. However, as stated above, the record shows that with regard to the M16A2 rifle, each offeror proposed unique and different sights and mounts, and each offeror provided different mounting instructions. With regard to M4 carbine testing, L-3 provided different mounting instructions to the agency than it provided for the M16A2 rifle, and the M4 carbine also is of a different design. Mounting Instructions at 24"‘25. L-3 has not shown that the test was flawed. [7] Although L-3 asserts that any confusion about its mounting instructions could have been resolved through "clarifications," Supp. Protest and Comments at 15, the agency was under no obligation to conduct clarifications with L-3 here, particularly considering that they were the result of an inadequately written proposal. FAR sect. 15.306(b)(2); Government Telecomms., Inc., B-299542.2, June 21, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 136 at 8 (agency has discretion to not seek clarifications). L-3 cites to our line of "benchmark" cases where we have emphasized the need for flexibility in the conduct of "benchmark" and other demonstration tests, and where we have stated that deficiencies should be pointed out and corrected during the negotiation process to ensure maximum competition. See, e.g., CRX Telecom, B"‘249610, B-249610.5, Apr. 9, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 308 at 11. However, in CRX Telecom and similar cases, the "benchmark" tests were deemed to be "an inherent part of the negotiation process" where discussions were required, id. at 11, unlike here where the RFP specifically stated that bid samples that failed "essential criteria" would be rejected and not included in the competitive range. Thus, the facts here are more similar to our line of cases that require only that product testing be conducted fairly and consistent with the RFP, as we found was done here. See, e.g., Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., supra, at 5; Pride Mobility Prods. Corp., B"‘291878, Apr. 8, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 80 at 3.
|
|
Quoted:
The below information while long (sorry) is a good read on the decision when L3 sued in Federal Claims Court in DC so that they could retest. The Judge allowed it and their sights failed the retest. Had this on the hard drive from awhile ago, and we thought it would be relevant here. Once again, no bashing here, just getting the facts out as best we can. Hope this helps. Vic <SNIP> (previous post) It should be noted that this judgment decision was on a .govy web site for about a day and a few other places but then removed. I have not looked in awhile if it's posted again...A bit busy for the Google-Fu.
Edited....Ahh, the GAO has it up here now. http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311453.pdf |
|
Quoted:
SNIP Thanks for the info. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/04/lehman-brothers-aftershocks-28-days Since Lehman Brothers is one of the "L"s in L3 Eotech, and helped destroy the world economy, which thus helped usher in the age of the Obama, I'm disinclined to consider their products. I find it also interesting the Pat Rogers reports he only gets about 400 hours of battery life out of Eotech despite the 1100 hour claim by the manufacturer. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=369513&page=3 [ /quote] Glad we could help. Vic 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
SNIP Thanks for the info. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/04/lehman-brothers-aftershocks-28-days Since Lehman Brothers is one of the "L"s in L3 Eotech, and helped destroy the world economy, which thus helped usher in the age of the Obama, I'm disinclined to consider their products. I find it also interesting the Pat Rogers reports he only gets about 400 hours of battery life out of Eotech despite the 1100 hour claim by the manufacturer. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=369513&page=3 [ /quote] Glad we could help. Vic
I was thanking him for the interesting article and the online link to it. Why the
|
|
How was clasky bashing L3? If he were (and he wasn't, he posted information that's neither confidential nor new, that information about their appeal and resulting delay in the new sight being fielded came out last year, in the same thread where L3 was sending retrofit kits to address the 553's battery contacts), why should you care, couldn't possibly be because you're expanding and selling more of the L3 gear, could it?
Re: your mount, why didn't the Army select the LT mount? Would it have helped if you supplied your mounts to Aimpoint for the CCO solicitation? If you did, why wasn't the LT mount selected? |
|
I am going to go out on a limb here and figure that Mark ha sources of information other than arfcom. I am pretty sure Mark would know if he got the contract. That being said, I am guessing we will still be seeing LaRue mounts on soldiers weapons pretty regularly, as long as unit armorers will let soldiers trade out mounts.
As to why, I had a talk with one of the engineers at LMC about that silly knob on their front sight post. The army really loves that stupid knob; I am guessing that the Powers-That-Be don't think that even a LaRue QD mount is secure enough for the 'common' soldier's weapon. |
|
Quoted: How was clasky bashing L3? If he were (and he wasn't, he posted information that's neither confidential nor new, that information about their appeal and resulting delay in the new sight being fielded came out last year, in the same thread where L3 was sending retrofit kits to address the 553's battery contacts), why should you care, couldn't possibly be because you're expanding and selling more of the L3 gear, could it? <snip> Nothing new, as we've been doin' business with L-3 for quite some time ... and with Insight ... and with OSTI ... and with Aimpoint ... and Quoted:
<snip> Re: your mount, why didn't the Army select the LT mount? Would it have helped if you supplied your mounts to Aimpoint for the CCO solicitation? Or did you? If you did, do you know why it wasn't selected? To our knowledge, and much to our chagrin, Aimpoint didn't submit their CCO with our mount, or anyone else's for that matter. For their own reasons, I reckon they don't trust outside vendors ... maybe they've been cornered by a vendor in their past history, and like it or lump it, they insist on maintaining all production control. Given what I know, it's hard to argue. Who knows, perhaps it could also be a price-point thing. Either way, it is what it is. Interestingly, since becoming an Aimpoint dealer, we've received and enjoyed some mighty handsome trophies for the sales figures we've run out of here. And it looks as if we've nailed it again for the third year in a row. 
But shucks, I would've thought that feat ... oh well. Some days chickens ... and some days feathers.
ML |
|
Quoted:
I'm not a big Eotech fan, but reading the complaint & response my take is that the testers failed to properly secure the mount to the gun, then failed it because it fell off. That's just lame. A better written manual or a better mount. Seems like L-3 did themselves in (in this regard). |
| Having spent 25 plus years in Army acquisition, and without having any first hand knowledge of this particular test, I would not believe any excerpt out of any test report without having first read the test plan and the entire test report. I can recite numerous dumb things that testors have done that seemed reasonable to them, but were not smart with common sense was applied. |
|
To our knowledge, and much to our chagrin, Aimpoint didn't submit their CCO with our mount, or anyone else's for that matter. I think it is telling, that Freddie Blish, the military sales guy from Aimpoint that does demos for potential customers is using a LaRue mount and not their own: See video #2: http://www.downrange.tv/show2/ |
|
Quoted: To our knowledge, and much to our chagrin, Aimpoint didn't submit their CCO with our mount, or anyone else's for that matter. I think it is telling, that Freddie Blish, the military sales guy from Aimpoint that does demos for potential customers is using a LaRue mount and not their own: See video #2: http://www.downrange.tv/show2/ I like those videos but, in the video#2 you referenced, he really should've mentioned that the reason it returned to zero so well is because of the mount he used. Yes, aimpoints will return to zero when a mount is used that has that capability. AFAIK, you won't have that great of a result using the big knob they give you. |
|
Quoted:
Having spent 25 plus years in Army acquisition, and without having any first hand knowledge of this particular test, I would not believe any excerpt out of any test report without having first read the test plan and the entire test report. I can recite numerous dumb things that testors have done that seemed reasonable to them, but were not smart with common sense was applied. Funny you say that. When our seven (7) SPOTR samples recently came back from a solicitation we lost out on ... oddly, they had been disassembled down to the last set-screw. Hell, I was shocked the lenses weren't pulled out and thrown in the bottom of the case. 
Of course, I'm sure the gents doing the testing didn't get it, what with everything littered in the bottom of the soft-case. You win some, you lose some, and you get some broke off in your, uh, nevermind.
|
|
Quoted:
Having spent 25 plus years in Army acquisition, and without having any first hand knowledge of this particular test, I would not believe any excerpt out of any test report without having first read the test plan and the entire test report. I can recite numerous dumb things that testors have done that seemed reasonable to them, but were not smart with common sense was applied. This is the kind of thing that makes me laugh on the outside and my heart hurt on the inside. Also its why I think its funny when companies talk about being chosen by the Military. No offense to Greenwolf, but 90% of the guys I know who went to Acquisitions did it because the were less than successful in the operations world. |
|
Over the last 3 weeks I've had the opportunity to put over 2000 rounds down range through a variety of ACOGs, EOTechs, M68s and today the M4 (M69 to be?). Switching back and forth between them reminded me that there is something to be said for the simplicity of the Aimpoints.
Like Greenwolf, I was (am still in limited capacity) also in DoD Acquisitions (Navy). [Note: I drove a desk after NPQ'ing out of subs following an injury. So I suppose I'm one of the "not too good at operations" guys] If there's one thing that you have to do in bringing a new weapon or support system to the field... it's that everything must be sailor/soldier-proof. All of the optics above can be great and used effectively. However, I can see how the M4 wins out... Mount, turn on, zero, leave on until your relief's relief's relief is departing, and in the meantime put little red dot where you want to make bang-bang and fire. From what I've seen I think Uncle Sam made a pretty good call for an easy to use soldier-proof system. My $.02 |
AR Sponsor