Breaking news... Russians think the M16 sucks

[DevsAdvocate 112]

So if it is so easy I think you should go ahead and design, market, and sell such a thing. I'll buy the first perfect rifle, if you are willing to sell it.

 

Wanna front a few million dollars? Just kidding. In all fairness, there are a few promising designs out there already... the FN SCAR and Remington ACR both come to mind. I honestly think the biggest change you can make to either of those is to replace the STANAG magazine with something more robust. One of the main points of failure on the AR-15 pattern rifle is the magazine design. It's simply not robust when compared to other magazines. Improved springs, followers (like the Magpul ones), and reinforced feed lips. I would also move the mag catch from the side to spine of the mag as well. Similar to the G36 design. This aids in being ambidextrous while keeping some of the ergonomic benefits.

[Shane45 807]

Also, is FN still building for MIL these days? Or no? I'm not sure if their still making SCAR-16s for SOCOM anymore...*facepalm*

 

Adsolutely! They just won another contract and that is why 16's and 17's will likely get scarce for a while as the contract will take up the next 3 months of production.

 

 

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=25398bbee12496a7a88b87b3123b2d3e&tab=core&_cview=0

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Adsolutely! They just won another contract and that is why 16's and 17's will likely get scarce for a while as the contract will take up the next 3 months of production.

 

 

https://www.fbo.gov/...b=core&_cview=0

 

Nice! So rumors of their demise in SOCOM are a bit over-stated?

[Zell959 40]

These companies focus on getting military contracts, but the bulk of money they do make comes from the private market.

 

True, but one affects the other. A high-profile military contract is sometimes all the marketing they need to see a significant spike in higher-margin civilian sales. I think Barret sees a lot of profit from civilian sales because they make weapons that have earned them military contracts. Being a recognized maker of firearms that meet the standards of the military generates more credibility & demand for their products than an advertising campaign ever could.

[Shane45 807]

I think that may be true of some companies like Barrett but might not be true for companies like Knights Armament. However, with all the anouncements of mil budget cuts, I would sure place a bet that the civy market wil get more attention. The downside of this is you might see Zombie plastered all over everything which has already started to occur . Its a slippery slope if the mall ninja becomes the target market!

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I think that may be true of some companies like Barrett but might not be true for companies like Knights Armament. However, with all the anouncements of mil budget cuts, I would sure place a bet that the civy market wil get more attention. The downside of this is you might see Zombie plastered all over everything which has already started to occur . Its a slippery slope if the mall ninja becomes the target market!

 

The biggest problem with all this is the general protection of IP. If Remington or FN were smart, they would license their designs for cheap and let other manufacturers build them with the caveat that they would be for civilian/non-contract sale only. This way more makers can crank out more rifles, more rifles mean lower prices and more accessories. FN or Remington would make money not on the production of rifles (they could still sell theirs at a premium), but the licensing fees for each unit sold.

 

It's kinda like the difference between selling the handle and the razor. Sell the handle at a loss, make your money back from the razors.

 

This can also be a back-door route to replacing the M-4/M-16. Something that can penetrate the civilian market deeply would carry over to the MIL. Let's face it: if the FN SCAR or ACR would probably be far more popular and widely-used if sold at a more reasonable price point. Right now, people ask: why buy a SCAR or ACR when I can get an AR-15 kitted out for the same amount. With lower prices, folks can ask: Why buy an AR-15 when I can get a superior SCAR or ACR for the same money?

[Shane45 807]

I cant even begin to tell you how much of a bad idea this is! Would you REALLY want the reputation of your product placed squarely in the hands of companies trying to make the cheapest version? And frankly the market would want the mill version anyway. Thats the very first thing that starting coming out of everyones mouths when there was going to be a Remy ACR for mil contracts. Suddenly everyone wanted the remy version. I dont think your master plan of socialist manufacturing will work out to well. So just eat some raman save up and get the good one when you can Its also bad business. Look at Harley Davidson. When they kept a healthy demand profits remained high for many years. When they upped production and overhead, its been the worst times for them in a looooong time. Many manufacturers submitting weapons systems for various gov contracts have repealed their intrest because they are not willing to let their product be manufactured by others. I agree with this position. I have personally seen this in manufacturing many times over. Companies that say they can do it just as well trying to get the sub out business on a component. And then when its time to make your product and the parts arent up to snuff, you miss delivery deadlines as a result. I believe in controlling as much as you possibly can if you care about your products reputation....

[Kaiser7 33]

I cant even begin to tell you how much of a bad idea this is! Would you REALLY want the reputation of your product placed squarely in the hands of companies trying to make the cheapest version? And frankly the market would want the mill version anyway. Thats the very first thing that starting coming out of everyones mouths when there was going to be a Remy ACR for mil contracts. Suddenly everyone wanted the remy version. I dont think your master plan of socialist manufacturing will work out to well. So just eat some raman save up and get the good one when you can Its also bad business. Look at Harley Davidson. When they kept a healthy demand profits remained high for many years. When they upped production and overhead, its been the worst times for them in a looooong time. Many manufacturers submitting weapons systems for various gov contracts have repealed their intrest because they are not willing to let their product be manufactured by others. I agree with this position. I have personally seen this in manufacturing many times over. Companies that say they can do it just as well trying to get the sub out business on a component. And then when its time to make your product and the parts arent up to snuff, you miss delivery deadlines as a result. I believe in controlling as much as you possibly can if you care about your products reputation....

 

I do think that if the AR was never adopted for military use, it wouldn't be the civilian hit that it is today. A lot of Vets like having the rifle that guarded their life, and after all, when you're that experienced with a platform, it makes sense that people would want one when they got out. Since it served for so long, there are A LOT of vets who used the M16 out there. Of course, non vets want them too, but a lot of that initial interest in the platform probably is the result of seeing the guns the vets had.

 

As for your point Shane, I agree with you to a point. However, the AR is either an anomoly, or shows that if there are enough companies producing good variants, it won't harm the reputation of the original. I mean, just about every company and their grandma makes AR parts, and some are definitely worse than others. However, on a whole, the AR has a pretty good reputation.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I cant even begin to tell you how much of a bad idea this is! Would you REALLY want the reputation of your product placed squarely in the hands of companies trying to make the cheapest version?

 

Well, the nice thing about licensing is that you can attach stipulations to it. Think of it from a technology perspective: Google gives away Android licenses for free, with certain strings. One of them being limitations on how much you can modify the OS, the quality of the modifications, etc. In order to retain the 'Android' label. Google wins by getting their product on many phones, as well as their software. Google search, maps, etc. Apple is also a bit similar as well, albeit more controlled.

 

Also: with firearms, quality levels are quickly determined. With multiple manufacturers, you'll can see a Bravo Company ACR/SCAR, or a DPMS ACR/SCAR, a KAC ACR/SCAR, or even a Palmetto State Armory ACR/SCAR. You can pick quality manufacturers who can build uppers, barrels, etc. Even compatible stocks, forends, lowers... It takes all the pressure off of Remington and FN. They can sit there and get royalties on every upper sold under the license, and every compatible component. Meanwhile, they can produce their own version and charge a premium... kinda like how Colt does today.

 

And frankly the market would want the mill version anyway. Thats the very first thing that starting coming out of everyones mouths when there was going to be a Remy ACR for mil contracts. Suddenly everyone wanted the remy version.

 

That's cool. If someone wants to pay $1,000 extra for a rollmark, more power to them. I just want an ACR as cheap as possible and as good as possible. It would be sweet if PSA, BCM, KAC, would sign on and make them. I'd be just as happy with one of theirs as I would be with one from Remington.

 

I dont think your master plan of socialist manufacturing will work out to well. So just eat some raman save up and get the good one when you can Its also bad business.

 

Firstoff, it's not socialist, it's a licensing model. By licensing, you get profits off of other companies' investments, and you can likewise shield yourself if they produce a defective product. If a licensed manufacturer cranks out a few bad SCARs, FN can simply say: "Well, that sucks! If you want the absolute best quality, buy one directly from us!"

 

Look at Harley Davidson. When they kept a healthy demand profits remained high for many years. When they upped production and overhead, its been the worst times for them in a looooong time.

 

That's a different story entirely. This one has a lot to do with their quality control and their labor. There is no reason why scaling up production should be a decline in product quality. Harley decided to put profits over their customers, and now they suck. Not to mention making bikes in India... hehehe

 

But if a company like FN/Remington does it right, they don't need to worry too much about such things. They are insulated. If DPMS makes a bad AR-15, do you look at Colt and blame them? Nope.

 

Many manufacturers submitting weapons systems for various gov contracts have repealed their intrest because they are not willing to let their product be manufactured by others. I agree with this position. I have personally seen this in manufacturing many times over. Companies that say they can do it just as well trying to get the sub out business on a component. And then when its time to make your product and the parts arent up to snuff, you miss delivery deadlines as a result. I believe in controlling as much as you possibly can if you care about your products reputation....

 

That's because they get greedy.

[Shane45 807]

It has nothing to do with greed. Im not speaking from a speculative view.here. This is a conversation I have had with manufacturers in this industry. Some sub everything out like XXXX(decided not to name names), and consequently I would make a large bet that the new CNC machines they bought to make the items in house was due in large part getting tired of what relying on third party vendors does to your business! I would NEVER want to sub out for the products I make. I just wont do it. I put my blood sweat and boatloads of money into developing my products and i am certainly not going to put its reputation in the hands of others. I DO believe that the reputation of the AR and 1911's have suffered quite a bit due to everyone and their uncle making one. In your "licensing" model what you have created is the exact thing the AR world has going on now. A new buyer has to rely on someone with a PHD in AR to tell them what is good and what is sh!t. I want a Porche made by Porche, not hyundai. So I will save and buy the Porche from Porche if that is my inclination. If you can only afford a Honda, either save mrore or buy the Honda.There isnt anything terribly new in marketing. So I think its safe to say no one embraces the licensing model for good reason. Do you think the designers at Magpul are happy with the way Licensing the Masada has turned out? I bet not.....

 

If you think the Rollmark is the only difference, you just dont understand........

[Shane45 807]

Kaiser, I do agree and believe that the civy public does indeed embrace what the mil uses. To me its simple logic they are applying. I think there is an accepted position that if it survives them and their testing its surely good enough for me. I think in most cases this is probably sound.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

It has nothing to do with greed. Im not speaking from a speculative view.here. This is a conversation I have had with manufacturers in this industry. Some sub everything out like XXXX(decided not to name names), and consequently I would make a large bet that the new CNC machines they bought to make the items in house was due in large part getting tired of what relying on third party vendors does to your business! I would NEVER want to sub out for the products I make. I just wont do it. I put my blood sweat and boatloads of money into developing my products and i am certainly not going to put its reputation in the hands of others. I DO believe that the reputation of the AR and 1911's have suffered quite a bit due to everyone and their uncle making one. In your "licensing" model what you have created is the exact thing the AR world has going on now. A new buyer has to rely on someone with a PHD in AR to tell them what is good and what is sh!t. I want a Porche made by Porche, not hyundai. So I will save and buy the Porche from Porche if that is my inclination. If you can only afford a Honda, either save mrore or buy the Honda.There isnt anything terribly new in marketing. So I think its safe to say no one embraces the licensing model for good reason. Do you think the designers at Magpul are happy with the way Licensing the Masada has turned out? I bet not.....

 

Of course not. But they did it all wrong.

 

Also, I understand the arguments re: AR-15s and 1911s, but that's simply unfair and easily handled. You can choose who you license to. Do you think if Spikes Tactical, Knights Armament, Bravo Company, or Palmetto State Armory were given the rights to manufacture the SCAR under license, that they would screw it up?

 

Furthermore, what we have in the AR world is awesome, I can source my parts from different manufacturers based on reputation and cost. I don't have to buy all my stuff from Colt if I don't want to. This is why the AR-15 dominates the rifle market. This is how Remington/FN can dominate if they want to, and make a killing. The AR-15 isn't even licensed, it's an open TDP. But throw in licensing with profit sharing, and a company can corner the market and make a ton of money in the process.

 

If you think the Rollmark is the only difference, you just dont understand........

 

What's the difference between a Colt AR-15 and a BCM one? Or Noveske vs. BCM? Or even Colt vs. Stag?

 

How about Springfield 1911s vs. RIAs? Kimbers vs. Colts? Etc.

 

Ultimately: Cost and QC.

[Shane45 807]

It is not an open TDP! Very few manufacturers actually hold the TDP. Even though the gov holds the TDP to the M4, Colt would still recieve a royalty for any M4 manufactured for the govt that wasnt made by Colt. This gets into that whole milspec thing which I just cant do one more time so here is an article that does a good job.

 

http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=2259&cid=4

[Ray Ray 3,566]

This thread is like I entered bizarre-O world.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

It is not an open TDP! Very few manufacturers actually hold the TDP. Even though the gov holds the TDP to the M4, Colt would still recieve a royalty for any M4 manufactured for the govt that wasnt made by Colt. This gets into that whole milspec thing which I just cant do one more time so here is an article that does a good job.

 

http://www.americanr...x?id=2259&cid=4

 

Yes, but the semi-auto AR-15? What of that? What I'm talking here won't interfere with FN's or Remington's MIL contracts as other companies would be making semi-auto clones.

[Shane45 807]

Whats the matter Ray, civil debate somehting totally forign to you?

[Shane45 807]

Well, is it a coincidence that the AR's that are built by those that hold or are adhering closest to the TDP seem to also be the Teir 1 AR's that hold up the best in training classes with "hard use" courses of fire?

 

DA, I think we will just have to accept we are on opposite sides of the fence on this. I understand your point, direction and motivation but I really think it is one of those, looks good on paper but doesnt translate to reality kind of things...

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

My god, this has become worse than vladtepes and I duking it out!

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Well, is it a coincidence that the AR's that are built by those that hold or are adhering closest to the TDP seem to also be the Teir 1 AR's that hold up the best in training classes with "hard use" courses of fire?

 

So what's the big deal then? BCM, PSA, Spikes, Noveske, KAC, can't build a SCAR or ACR properly?

 

DA, I think we will just have to accept we are on opposite sides of the fence on this. I understand your point, direction and motivation but I really think it is one of those, looks good on paper but doesnt translate to reality kind of things...

 

Gonna have to agree to disagree. The current tact taken by FN and Remington will only take them to the market fringes where only the rich and the mall ninjas live. Even an AR-15, built to the TDP by Colt is cheaper than an FN SCAR or a Remington ACR, and that says a lot. Those two rifles have no business costing anywhere above or around $2000... not for what they offer, not for what they're made of, and not for any major advances in design. While they may be excellent platforms, they will never be popular rifles simply because the cost is simply too damned high.

 

Sadly, this is the state of affairs in the US Firearms industry. A market full of buyers who want something newer and better than an AR-15, without having to spend a few months pay to get it. It's a missed opportunity for sales and profits. Sad, really. With my plan, you can make money, maintain high-quality, and penetrate the market deeply. The greater the penetration, the lower the cost of production, accessories, etc. The lower the cost of peripherals, the more people will view it as a valid alternate to the AR-15.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

My god, this has become worse than vladtepes and I duking it out!

 

I forgot, you're for what and what does Ant like, I can't remember?? LMAO

[Shane45 807]

DA, Im sorry but your business ideals are just off base! Why do you think AR manufacturers are going out of business daily! They saturated the market! Your so miopically focused on the cost of the rifle. It's the least expensive part of the total equation. Your entire contrived market plan is so you can have the best for the least. Sorry but Capitalism doesnt work that way. It WONT be cheaper, the companies profit margins will be higher! These arent non profit companies we are talking about here!

 

I am BY NO MEANS rich or even well to do but somehow with 1 kid in college and 1 in grade school and everything else that comes with the cost of a family I managed aquire quality tier 1 rifles. But the rifle its self is a buy one cry once affair. If you cant scrape together 2300 bucks, how are you going to afford training, ammo, a class or two a year, accessories over lets say a 20 year period? The rifle is a one time expence. If your not going to do any of these things and your just after the bragging right of owning a black rifle, then buy an Olympic Plinker because it just doesnt matter. Like I said in another thread about pistols translates to rifles as well. In 10 years you could easily spend 20k in the consumables, traning, competing etc etc. So the rifle is only roughly 10% of the overall cost for a 10 year period. Its the cheapest part of the equation. Cant afford a SCAR, buy one of the others you mentioned.It will do the job! Your idea that Hyundai should be allowed to build Mercedes so the masses can have one too does indeed sound very.....socialistic........

[DevsAdvocate 112]

DA, Im sorry but your business ideals are just off base! Why do you think AR manufacturers are going out of business daily! They saturated the market! Your so miopically focused on the cost of the rifle. It's the least expensive part of the total equation. Your entire contrived market plan is so you can have the best for the least. Sorry but Capitalism doesnt work that way. It WONT be cheaper, the companies profit margins will be higher! These arent non profit companies we are talking about here!

 

It's not completely off-base. It's a well-documented model that works quite well in other business sectors. Namely: electronics.

 

As for why AR-15 manufacturers are going out of business, you answered it yourself: over-saturation and diminishing demand. In the AR market, you either offer something new or close to TDP, or... that's it. Those who are dying out entered the game way too late or simply failed to keep up with other manufacturers qualities and prices.

 

New rifles like the ACR and SCAR don't have that problem yet. And let's face it, it's not a bad problem to want in the long run. As long as people are building your rifles and buying yours, you're making money.

 

I am BY NO MEANS rich or even well to do but somehow with 1 kid in college and 1 in grade school and everything else that comes with the cost of a family I managed aquire quality tier 1 rifles. But the rifle its self is a buy one cry once affair. If you cant scrape together 2300 bucks, how are you going to afford training, ammo, a class or two a year, accessories over lets say a 20 year period? The rifle is a one time expence. If your not going to do any of these things and your just after the bragging right of owning a black rifle, then buy an Olympic Plinker because it just doesnt matter. Like I said in another thread about pistols translates to rifles as well. In 10 years you could easily spend 20k in the consumables, traning, competing etc etc. So the rifle is only roughly 10% of the overall cost for a 10 year period. Its the cheapest part of the equation. Cant afford a SCAR, buy one of the others you mentioned.It will do the job! Your idea that Hyundai should be allowed to build Mercedes so the masses can have one too does indeed sound very.....socialistic........

 

But what is the actual value of a tier one rifle? What am I really getting out of a $2,000 SCAR that I can't get out of an $1100 AR-15... You know what I get with the AR-15? I got a rifle (BCM) that works, a fairly high-end Red Dot Sight (bought from you actually), and a high quality BUIS. Plus a rail for anything else I want. That being said, I got all that, plus extra magazines for the rifle, before I passed the $2k mark. With a SCAR, I'm just starting there. Ammo and training costs are a different bin of money entirely. But for me it's value.

 

As an engineer, I find it appalling that FN is trying to sell a rifle for 2-3 times the amount of comparable ARs without offering 2-3 times the value. Same with Remington/Bushmaster. Gun owners are a fickle bunch, they'll spend money on good quality and value, but not for something that does the same job but costs way more.

 

In all honesty, an FN SCAR is only worth buying at around $1500. That's how much an upper-tier AR-15 with rails and a BUIS costs. Otherwise, why bother? I can shift the money I didn't spend on training/ammo or another rifle/shotgun/handgun...

[Shane45 807]

As a business owner I appluad FN because they have moved a TON of rifles and keep getting top dollar for them! And frankly, I dont see the price as that much higher. Prices for the last 3 rifles 2 of wich are AR's were $1700, $2100 and the SCAR at 2300. The price dif between my last AR and my SCAR is only 200 bucks!!! Value IS ENTIRELY an individual thing. Either you see the value or you dont. If enough do, they buy the product. If enough do that matches nicely with production, your golden. You have to remember, a SCAR is only worth buying at 1500 for you. Thats your opinion. Thats your point of valuation. However the marketplace its self sees it differently as FN has no trouble selling all it makes at a higher dollar figure.....

 

 

"But what is the actual value of a tier one rifle? What am I really getting out of a $2,000 SCAR that I can't get out of an $1100 AR-15..."

 

I have said this time and again, it is quite posible you will never push the rifle to the envelope that it matters and therefore the extra expenditure brought diminished returns. So I can only tell you why I bought one. One friend put 5000 rounds through his without cleaning or lube. He did it on a hard firing schedule to the point it oosed carbon out of every orrafice. Zero malfs. My other friend who is a failure analysis engineer did a thourough test of the rifle. I liked what he had to say. Add mil trials into the equation and Im convinced its one tough SOB. Will any of that ever make a diff in my shooting world. Probably not! But I like knowing it can! One other benefit that is much more personal. I very, very much have grown to like the way the SCAR handles. Its significantly different than an AR.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

As a business owner I appluad FN because they have moved a TON of rifles and keep getting top dollar for them! And frankly, I dont see the price as that much higher. Prices for the last 3 rifles 2 of wich are AR's were $1700, $2100 and the SCAR at 2300. The price dif between my last AR and my SCAR is only 200 bucks!!! Value IS ENTIRELY an individual thing. Either you see the value or you dont. If enough do, they buy the product. If enough do that matches nicely with production, your golden. You have to remember, a SCAR is only worth buying at 1500 for you. Thats your opinion. Thats your point of valuation. However the marketplace its self sees it differently as FN has no trou be selling all it makes at a higher dollar figure.....

 

That's very true. Some people can justify the purchase of a $2000 5.56mm shooter, most cannot. For me, it's simply price gouging, and I'd feel like a sucker if I paid that much for one. Maybe it's because of the fact that pound for pound, it's cheaper to build than an AR... so why the hell am I paying more? A name? You mentioned the difference between a Honda and BMW earlier... the difference being a jump in performance from one brand to the other. How is a SCAR/ACR that big of a jump over a comparable AR?

 

I mean, I love both the SCAR and ACR... but I'm not gonna be fleeced trying to buy one.

[Shane45 807]

Well.... when i hear time and again from trainers how overall the SCARS just arent going down in their classes... I truly see a value in that! Especially when you factor in the time, effort and expense to go to a training class. I think there is a flaw in your logic. production cost is nearly irrelevant. What if I figure out a way to make the BEST rifle in the world out of sand. It costs me 100 bucks to make. Should I only sell it for 200 or are you paying for my intellectual property, development, testing and everything else that goes with delivering a new product. No matter what it costs me to make I will be paid for the intellectual value, it being the best, and everything it costs me to bring it to market. You cant compare overall cost of a legacy product compared to the costs of engineering an entirely new one.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Well.... when i hear time and again from trainers how overall the SCARS just arent going down in their classes... I truly see a value in that! Especially when you factor in the time, effort and expense to go to a training class. I think there is a flaw in your logic. production cost is nearly irrelevant. What if I figure out a way to make the BEST rifle in the world out of sand. It costs me 100 bucks to make. Should I only sell it for 200 or are you paying for my intellectual property, development, testing and everything else that goes with delivering a new product. No matter what it costs me to make I will be paid for the intellectual value, it being the best, and everything it costs me to bring it to market. You cant compare overall cost of a legacy product compared to the costs of engineering an entirely new one.

 

Depends on what your goal is: you can price it high and sell low volume, or price it reasonably and sell it in high volume. The greater return is usually the latter if you're not offering a distinct increase in value.

 

As for IP rights and development costs, those are re-couped over the lifetime of the rifle, which means you have two options: sell at a loss to get more units out and build sales momentum, or defray the costs of development and production up front. Which means you will have to sell your first rifle for $1M, and the second rifle for cheaper.

 

Sony, for example, when it unveiled the PS3, found that with the cost of development and components, their gaming system would be about $850/unit initially until the costs of development were defrayed, and until efficiency took hold. But, if they sold it at $850 a unit at the outset, no one would buy it, and sales would suffer. In fact, the system wouldn't take hold and established competitors would price them out of the market. Instead, they sold units at a loss, claimed a share of the market and eventually become profitable.

 

A smaller gun company probably can't manage the capital aspects that a global one like Sony can, but that's why licensing exists, and it's why Magpul initially sold the rights to Remington when they realized they did not have the capacity to build the thing in-house. Unfortunately, instead of being sold for "about $1500", they sold the damned thing for nearly twice that. People immediately got turned off to the rifle and there seems to be little excitement for it.

 

Why? Because it's simply too much for too little.

 

It's why SCARs, FS2000s, ACRs, XCRs, etc. tend to hang out on the peripheries of gun ownership. Sure, their nice... but geez can they be expensive and unsupported. I don't really see any of those rifles really having a future outside of a few exceptions, like if one were chosen by the MIL. But if that doesn't happen, they'll be the interesting pieces that have small communities devoted to them and not much else.

 

It's sad because this means innovation stagnates and the AR's reign remains uncontested.

[Shane45 807]

I think you should go research just how many SCARS have been produced! Its already an adopted rifle and i see it doing nothing but gaining momentum. The ACR on the other hand has gone the other way. Your ideas on business seem rather speculatory and seem to lack actual experience. This is not meant as a swipe at you but instead meant to point out that your position on the subject may lack real wold experience. I personally know many manufacturers in the industry and or have had direct or indirect dealings with them so my views are 1st hand. I personally buy about 2 mill a year from vendors at my day job so i have a lot of business dealings and I personally own a service company and a manufacturing comapny. And so again, my views are formed first hand by doing, not speculating.

 

Here is a question for you. You have mentioned the SCAR and the ACR. Im betting you mention the SCAR because its already proven its self. I bet you mention the ACR because Im betting you believe its nearly as good and has a shot at mil adoption. But I dont here you mention the Robarm XCR. Is it because you dont believe they have a shot at mil adoption? Does that matter for you? I would take an XCR over an ACR any day of the week. Here is a rifle with many of the same features at a price point you would like to see this type of rifle at yet I have never heard you bring them up?

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I think you should go research just how many SCARS have been produced! Its already an adopted rifle and i see it doing nothing but gaining momentum. The ACR on the other hand has gone the other way. Your ideas on business seem rather speculatory and seem to lack actual experience. This is not meant as a swipe at you but instead meant to point out that your position on the subject may lack real wold experience. I personally know many manufacturers in the industry and or have had direct or indirect dealings with them so my views are 1st hand. I personally buy about 2 mill a year from vendors at my day job so i have a lot of business dealings and I personally own a service company and a manufacturing comapny. And so again, my views are formed first hand by doing, not speculating.

 

I wouldn't say my views are entirely speculatory, but also based on some real-world examples in a few different industries. In fact, I would wager one of the biggest reasons the ACR is failing is due to how it's price-point was handled. Once Magpul quoted "around $1500", then Remington should've offered one for around that price. They didn't, people got pissed. Especially when they realized what they were getting: a heavy (7+lb) rifle with a 1x9 twist barrel going for FN SCAR prices. At least FN could get away with their exorbitant prices thanks to the 'SOCOM Premium' and being relatively uncontested. But the ACR was just DOA.

 

Shame... because it was the first home grown American semi-auto rifle design that showed promise since the AR-15. It has all the potential to unseat the AR platform... if designed, marketed, and supported properly.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Here is a question for you. You have mentioned the SCAR and the ACR. Im betting you mention the SCAR because its already proven its self. I bet you mention the ACR because Im betting you believe its nearly as good and has a shot at mil adoption. But I dont here you mention the Robarm XCR. Is it because you dont believe they have a shot at mil adoption? Does that matter for you? I would take an XCR over an ACR any day of the week. Here is a rifle with many of the same features at a price point you would like to see this type of rifle at yet I have never heard you bring them up?

 

I don't think they have a shot at the MIL. Call it a hunch, but I don't think they have the capability to produce the needed numbers to supply the contract. Besides that, I've read the Customer Service can be hit-or-miss, or even downright mean.

[Shane45 807]

I wouldn't say my views are entirely speculatory, but also based on some real-world examples in a few different industries. In fact, I would wager one of the biggest reasons the ACR is failing is due to how it's price-point was handled. Once Magpul quoted "around $1500", then Remington should've offered one for around that price. They didn't, people got pissed. Especially when they realized what they were getting: a heavy (7+lb) rifle with a 1x9 twist barrel going for FN SCAR prices. At least FN could get away with their exorbitant prices thanks to the 'SOCOM Premium' and being relatively uncontested. But the ACR was just DOA.

 

Shame... because it was the first home grown American semi-auto rifle design that showed promise since the AR-15. It has all the potential to unseat the AR platform... if designed, marketed, and supported properly.

 

And that is exactly the concerns that come from licensing models.... remember compliance is simply as srong as your bank account to fund legal action!