Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Army looking at compact sniper rifle

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,728
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 1_click_off View Post
    I guess if I am spending your money, then no. If I am spending other's hard earned money I would get a service contract for "just incase" also. Most service contracts are just a way to justify a higher price for something not worth the cost. It should come with a warranty and training for how to properly maintain it. I just expect the unit number to be higher for that kind of money. I guess the M110 ,as nice as it is, must be the government crying once.

    I don't typically cry, I do alot of reserch before I make a purchase and am pretty satisfied with what I end up with. Sure I have had a few impulse buys, but if it is a major or important purchase I will spend hours investigating all I can to make an informed decision.
    here's a simple solution then. why don't you make a company that makes a complete compact repeating sniper rifle system including optics and secondary optics and mounts and magazines and a box to lug it all around in. then you can charge half of what the awarded contract holder does, win the contract with superior equipment and service so that our best and brightest get the best and knock-down-drag-out-best equipment under the sun and then you service it until the sun blows up, all at half the price. everyone wins!

    but something makes me think that once you get to the level where you can repeatedly produce thousands of the best of the best equipment, deliver it on time, on spec, and service it until the sun blows up, while paying hard working americans, while paying taxes and giving back to your employees... the price will creep up just a little.

    just a hunch.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    962
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by trinydex View Post
    here's a simple solution then. why don't you make a company that makes a complete compact repeating sniper rifle system including optics and secondary optics and mounts and magazines and a box to lug it all around in. then you can charge half of what the awarded contract holder does, win the contract with superior equipment and service so that our best and brightest get the best and knock-down-drag-out-best equipment under the sun and then you service it until the sun blows up, all at half the price. everyone wins!

    but something makes me think that once you get to the level where you can repeatedly produce thousands of the best of the best equipment, deliver it on time, on spec, and service it until the sun blows up, while paying hard working americans, while paying taxes and giving back to your employees... the price will creep up just a little.

    just a hunch.
    Yep, sure nuff.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    947
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Didn't KAC recommend all these changes on current rifles originally? I could have sworn at no real cost upgrade as well.

    Sent from my SM-T217T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,245
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    The numbers quoted in the article are almost, but not quite completely, totally incorrect, and definitely misleading (either by intent or ignorance).

    Further, yes, it is a life-cycle contract, and full ancillary item list, all with their own separate list of strict requirements.

    My sig-line makes it clear where I work, so I cannot speak about this much further, I just wanted to drop in and point out that the full solicitation and MIL-PRF need to be read (with the assistance of a gov contract specialist) to have an idea of what is actually being asked.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    A Cardboard Box
    Posts
    1,625
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    The numbers quoted in the article are almost, but not quite completely, totally incorrect, and definitely misleading (either by intent or ignorance).

    Further, yes, it is a life-cycle contract, and full ancillary item list, all with their own separate list of strict requirements.

    My sig-line makes it clear where I work, so I cannot speak about this much further, I just wanted to drop in and point out that the full solicitation and MIL-PRF need to be read (with the assistance of a gov contract specialist) to have an idea of what is actually being asked.
    What would you know? You're just a smiley face...
    THE MORE YOU SWEAT IN TRAINING, THE LESS YOU BLEED IN BATTLE

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •