DevsAdvocate

Right, but it kinda hurts the media narrative that this guy is some evil racist Republican gun owner out to murder little black boys for the Ice Tea and Skittles...

Wow... apparently Zimmerman was a registered Democrat... http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/narrative-interrupted-george-zimmerman-a-registered-democrat/

Meh, I like the wood. Looks like they used it to beat some guy up.

Bought this as a big "fugg you" to Trenton... had one permit left, didn't have any handguns I wanted to buy on the radar, and didn't want to waste it. Solution: Buds Special, S&W Model 10. Cop-gun trade in. Locks up nice and tight, shoots dead on. Bore is pretty fresh. Exterior is a bit beat up, probably sat in a holster until it was replaced with a Glock 17... all in all, it has character.

Colt Pythons are like M1 Garands, buy em up now because the price will just keep going up, and up, and up!

But then again... if Remington wins... will we see a civilian version of this?

Is there a place where I can look up all court cases in the state of New Jersey? I could've sworn in some counties, collapsible AR stocks are de-facto 'legal' because precedents were set where county judges didn't deem them as part of the 'evil parts' list.

That's also one thing I'm hoping for as well. I don't like that I can get my thumb whacked while shooting the thing. EDIT: http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/model.asp?gid=FNG020&fid=FNF075&mid=FNM0239

Right. I'm just trying to point out why most folks who buy firearms typically balk at the SCAR's price. Especially in comparison to higher-end AR-15s... I mean, from what I've read, I'm reasonably confident my BCM AR-15 will go quite a while before it suffers any physical malfunctions... even to this day, the only times it had issues were magazine and ammo related. I figure I'll get a SCAR or ACR eventually... but I'm hoping prices will drop a bit for both in the long run.

I dunno about any of that. It's just another 5.56 shooter. Is it worth the $800 price difference between my BCM AR-15? I mean, is that $800 worth avoiding a change of my extractor spring/claw at 30,000 rounds? Even in NJ, is it worth it knowing I'll never play in the sandbox? To some, it may be worth it. I don't put anywhere near the round counts on my rifles as other do, so for me it's a bit more questionable.

Think SKS with collapsible stock.

When I mentioned that FN doesn't care about the civilian market, I meant it to be: They make so much more profit off of their military sales that they really don't need to expand in the civilian marketplace. They have great CS from what I've heard, and good outreach. But they are first and foremost a military/LE supplier. As for the car comparison, I don't think that translates too well into the firearm world. While price-sticking plays a role to an extent (Glocks are overpriced because price-point = perception of value), there is a point where value just doesn't match the price-point. The ACR is a great example of this: unproven, new, missing a lot of wanted features, yet demanding SCAR-level prices at the outset. W.T.F.? At least the FN SCAR can claim a SOCOM Premium due to it's use by combat personnel... but not the ACR. That being said... I think the SCAR-16 is still a bit overpriced and would be willing to wait until that comes down. Especially if FN wins the new Army contract.

Yepp. Now they have the XM2010 to replace that. But that's nowhere near the volume of a semi-auto carbine.

In comparison to FN. Aside from the M24/XM2010, what does Remington actually build for the military in a significant quantity? FN, in addition to the SCAR, supplies machine guns, and is even an alternate for M-16 production. Not to mention their international contracts with other countries.

I've looked at them. The price isn't too bad, but it seems to me that the best thing to do is to wait and see what happens. Especially with the Individual Carbine contract. The winner of that will benefit greatly... except if it's Colt. Then it's more of the same. I don't think the competition is clear-cut either... while the Bushmaster ACR is trash, I've read good things about Remington's design. Maybe because the QC is better, but also because they really want to win. Remington really lags when it comes to gov't contracts, so the stakes are higher for them to win the ICC than it is for FN (who has several international customers and other major product lines). There is also one factor that can help them win, and that is the fact they are an American company. Dunno if it counts for much though...

The difference is Magpul gave only one company the licensing rights. While legal action may be one route to control licensing, competition between manufacturers is another means (see: Google Android model). The nice thing about the ACR is that Magpul was going to be a sub for all the plastic components anyways, and all Bushmaster/Remington had to do was extrude/form some aluminum, build some AR barrels, and manufacture AR-15 trigger groups. So they got money for every rifle sold and for the sub-component parts. Frankly, I think the 'Bushmaster ACR' experiment is over. From what I've heard, distributors are waiting a long time for new ones to be built, and they're not coming down the pipe in any meaningful number. Remington/Bushmaster may also not be hitting their sales targets for the rifle either, which means that Magpul may just take the rights back and produce it in house, or split it with someone else. All in all, Magpul still made a lot money off the deal and didn't produce a single ACR, and if they choose to release their own ACR in a few years, they would be isolated from the QC and mistakes Remington/Bushmaster made.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Very nice. Would make for an interesting shotgun. I personally may sell my pump-action 870 and just focus on the 930... but then again, I barely shoot the damned things aside from hitting clay birds.

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. 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...

Hey raz-0, can you give me more info in regards to that barrel and the sights you put on it?

Nevermind, popped out the end cap thing with a wooden rod. Looks like I'm good to go with a mag extension.

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