One of the worst things that can happen to you is getting a big customer.
F.y.i. us army orders $50 million barrett mrads in 300 prc
- Thread starter Litehiker
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
One of the worst things that can happen to you is getting a big customer.
MajorSpittle
Well-Known Member
The Military is probably most concerned with Production Ammo Precision related to Production Rifle Precision. You take 20K rounds all loaded the same and shoot them through 200 rifles all produced the same and see if it has better over all Precision than the current 300WM/Remington combination.
Head spacing, chamber variation, powder variation....... they need mass production repeatability. Try to make 20K rifles that all shoot the same type of mass produced ammo sub MOA...... It is my guess that this is what they are looking for.
Head spacing, chamber variation, powder variation....... they need mass production repeatability. Try to make 20K rifles that all shoot the same type of mass produced ammo sub MOA...... It is my guess that this is what they are looking for.
Army has seen and tested the PRC (30-375) for around 10 years. Now that it has a military contract you can bet other mftrs will jump on asap. IMO smart move.
Jr1972
Well-Known Member
$50 million for a bulk order of rifles and ammo? Are they titanium or carbon fiber??
Techy
Well-Known Member
300 prc is great choice. There are better choices, but that is a good one.
SOCOM was on to something better with what they chose last year though
SOCOM was on to something better with what they chose last year though
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
They don't care how ridiculous the costs are. They're free...For them (our tax dollars).
There will always be resistance to change and often we focus on the negatives (human nature) because we are transitioning to the realms of the unknown instead of the rewards. Whether we like it or not, change in happening every day and for companies' (including the DoD) survivability and sustainability they must have the competitive advantage and change is the avenue to do just that.
I for one welcome change. I see no problem with the new acquisition. Most acquisition/contract/solicitation has a surveillance plan (or equivalent) that will assess the purchase for future decision-making to either renew, modify, or drop the contract. I am no subject matter expert on the but I have been involved in my "changes" since 1986 and competitive sourcing competencies for the last 23 years.
Today, we are all enjoying the benefits of what we resisted in the past, i.e., cellphone, computers, forums, rangefinders, long range hunting and shooting, etc. ...
Change is continuous and it is here to stay ...
Cheers!
I for one welcome change. I see no problem with the new acquisition. Most acquisition/contract/solicitation has a surveillance plan (or equivalent) that will assess the purchase for future decision-making to either renew, modify, or drop the contract. I am no subject matter expert on the but I have been involved in my "changes" since 1986 and competitive sourcing competencies for the last 23 years.
Today, we are all enjoying the benefits of what we resisted in the past, i.e., cellphone, computers, forums, rangefinders, long range hunting and shooting, etc. ...
Change is continuous and it is here to stay ...
Cheers!
Last edited:
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Ed, while I don't disagree with your opinion on this (for once). And I fully support our troops and want them to have the best equipment so we can dominate the battlefield. But I think most that are dissenting (like myself) are wondering why are they changing to something else now? Why was the .30-06 used from 1906 up through Vietnam, and the .308 Win has been in service (and still is) since 1952, but the .300 Norma & .300WM were scrapped after very short intervals (comparatively), for a brand new cartridge that does the same exact thing?
Personal opinion, is that I suspect this one will have a short military career, as well, when the next new thing comes around the bend.
Personal opinion, is that I suspect this one will have a short military career, as well, when the next new thing comes around the bend.
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Now, this is just purely my own opinion...So, take it as you will...
It just seems like a huge waste of our tax money, and a middle finger to the tax payers, with all the gross negligence and government waste of tax dollars we already have, all for them to jump on a bandwagon. Makes you wonder who all in the MIC owns Barrett and Hornady stocks to push their profit margins, or has special interest in the companies.
And while it might seem innocent to most, I see this as a joint-attempt by Hornady to massively profiteer, while also getting a free giant media boost from the armchair sniper sales market with the old "but military snipers use it so it must be the best" logic, to push their brand new cartridge on the private sector sales market. It's genius, I won't take that away from them...But at the same time, something about it just seems kind of like a 1984/Mockingbird style propaganda tactic to get the consumers to consume. It just seems very subversive and manipulative to me. Once again, it's genius, pure genius...But kind of dirty, IMO.
It just seems like a huge waste of our tax money, and a middle finger to the tax payers, with all the gross negligence and government waste of tax dollars we already have, all for them to jump on a bandwagon. Makes you wonder who all in the MIC owns Barrett and Hornady stocks to push their profit margins, or has special interest in the companies.
And while it might seem innocent to most, I see this as a joint-attempt by Hornady to massively profiteer, while also getting a free giant media boost from the armchair sniper sales market with the old "but military snipers use it so it must be the best" logic, to push their brand new cartridge on the private sector sales market. It's genius, I won't take that away from them...But at the same time, something about it just seems kind of like a 1984/Mockingbird style propaganda tactic to get the consumers to consume. It just seems very subversive and manipulative to me. Once again, it's genius, pure genius...But kind of dirty, IMO.
GoosePilot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 349
The article i read this morning stated that it was about modularity and being able to easily change the fewest parts to run 7.62 nato, 300 norma, 338 morma, or 300 prc
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
That part only justifies the rifle change... Why not just keep it chambered for both 7.62x51 and .300WM? Lake City already makes ammo for both under contract...
There's no cartridges listed that are belted... Seems like they're drinking the "Belts are bad...Mmmkay" kool-aid, too.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
Here is my spin on this new development for the MIC.
I don't think it is any better than other 30 cal cartridges so whats the big deal. The MIC has a history of making some questionable decisions
in the past, so I am not surprised.
Being different doesn't mean it's better, just different. We all have our favorite cartridge in certain calibers so there will never be a 100% consensus for the "Best" cartridge for the intended use, so rather than give My opinion on there choice, I will just wait and see.
Here is a video that renders a different opinion on this and all tho I don't agree with everything he says, it is a different opinion.
Like feenix, I to like change, but sometime it comes to fast and has not proven it's self and other times ,to slow and a great cartridge is over looked because it is Not the newest and may not have a catchy name.
My experiences with designing cartridges would tell me that a cartridge that has specific use, needs to have a specific set of design features to optimize its performance for the intended use. A cartridge
that has all the attributes for great performance in one use, may fail miserably in another.
Cautiously waiting.
J E CUSTOM
I don't think it is any better than other 30 cal cartridges so whats the big deal. The MIC has a history of making some questionable decisions
in the past, so I am not surprised.
Being different doesn't mean it's better, just different. We all have our favorite cartridge in certain calibers so there will never be a 100% consensus for the "Best" cartridge for the intended use, so rather than give My opinion on there choice, I will just wait and see.
Here is a video that renders a different opinion on this and all tho I don't agree with everything he says, it is a different opinion.
Like feenix, I to like change, but sometime it comes to fast and has not proven it's self and other times ,to slow and a great cartridge is over looked because it is Not the newest and may not have a catchy name.
My experiences with designing cartridges would tell me that a cartridge that has specific use, needs to have a specific set of design features to optimize its performance for the intended use. A cartridge
that has all the attributes for great performance in one use, may fail miserably in another.
Cautiously waiting.
J E CUSTOM
D
Deleted member 103481
Guest
The real gunsmith is just what this thread needed.
"After advisory by the only real gunsmith in America SOCOM has ordered 50 million in model 70 rifles chambered in 300 Weatherby"
"After advisory by the only real gunsmith in America SOCOM has ordered 50 million in model 70 rifles chambered in 300 Weatherby"
What you mentioned are the cycles of vision from leadership to leadership. They were executed based on the demands of that time. People are assuming that solicitation in question is going to be implemented across the board. There were many solicitations that no longer exist today. Missions are going to be specialized and their weapon requirements in the battlefield might be different. The solicitation gives them the opportunity to test it just like the .300 NM & WM.
Last edited:
