Weeeelllll, looks like that $80M contract didn't quite work out the way Remington thought it would. The government has stopped ordering the Remington M2010 for SOCOM and will be buying Barrett MRADs instead. The MRADs not only will be replacing the Mk13 family but taking over the same "Mk" number as the M2010 had in SOCOM service, implying that it is likely going to be a complete replacement for the SOCOM M2010 derivative as well - and that the government considers the M2010 in SOCOM service a mistake to be deleted.Remington will not be leaving NY - the US government just gave them an $80 mil contract over 10 years and apparently one of the conditions is that they stay in NY. We'll see how well that works out for Remington when they start losing civvie sales.
U.S. military special operations forces are set to get new bolt-action Barrett Multi-Role Adaptive Design sniper rifles, or MRADs, which operators can readily reconfigure to fire any of three different calibers depending on the mission requirements. The new weapons will help U.S. Special Operations Command streamline its sniper rifle inventories and expand its capabilities, but comes less than six years after a previous contract for entirely different guns that was supposed to meet many of the same basic goals.
The ASR is primarily slated to replace the remaining variants of the Mk 13 rifle family, which are derivatives of the Remington 700 in .300 Winchester Magnum.
But the purchase of the Barrett rifles raises questions about performance, or lack thereof, of rifles that SOCOM began purchasing in 2013 under an earlier program known as the Precision Sniper Rifle (PSR). That effort began four years earlier and called for a rifle that could accurately engage targets between 330 and 1,640 yards and could swap quickly between 7.62x51mm, .300 Winchester Magnum, and .338 Lapua Magnum.
Remington won this competition with their Modular Sniper Rifle (MSR), a derivative of the 7.62x51mm M2010 sniper rifle the company had developed for the U.S. Army. Among the rifles that lost out was the MRAD, which Barrett had originally developed specifically for the competition.
Those that think this might be some machination of the Trump Administration, please note when the government abruptly stopped buying Remington PSRs - 2015. Looks like the military was having problems with the rifles long before Trump was elected. Or Remington's recent bankruptcy.At the time, SOCOM confusingly announced that Remington’s rifle would also be designated the Mk 21. Though not unheard of, it is extremely rare for two completely distinct rifles to share the same base designation.
The PSR contract was also supposed to include work through 2023, but there has been very little discussion about the introduction and use of these rifles since Remington won the deal. In 2015, SOCOM almost zeroed out the fifth delivery order – cutting more than $4.8 million from the option, which was originally worth less than $5.1 million – without offering a public explanation. There have been no other contract actions relating to the PSR deal since then, according to the Federal Procurement Data System.
In 2018, U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Mark Owens, the Program Manager for Ammo and Weapons within SOCOM’s Program Executive Office for Special Operations Forces Warrior, made no mention of the PSR program whatsoever in a briefing he gave at the National Defense Industry Association’s annual Special Operations Forces Industry Conference. The same presentation said that special operations forces would continue to use the existing Mk 13 rifles until they got phased out in favor of the new ASRs.
This slide from US Army Lieutenant Colonel Mark Owens' 2018 briefing makes no mention of the PSR program at all.
So, it remains to be seen whether the new Barrett Mk 21 rifles will supplement or outright replace the Remington Mk 21s. Depending on how many of the latter rifles SOCOM actually accepted delivery of as part the PSR program, it may be easy for the new ASRs to supplant them entirely.
Welp, at this point, it looks like they should have done a Magpul and begun moving whilst fulfilling the contract. Especially considering that about a year or so after they got the contract, SOCOM prematurely stopped ordering their rifles and in their public briefings since have basically pretended that the PSRs don't exist. Add to that their bankruptcy due in part to staying in NY and losing civilian sales as a result, weeeeeellllll... yeah. That was a huge mistake on their part.You really think it's worthwhile for Remington to pack up and move while also violating an $80 million federal contract?
Welp, only one way to find out. A friend of mine loves Kimber so I went off of his recommendation. My only goal at this point is to get a minimum 500 rounds through the Kimber before the warranty is up which won’t be hard to do. If I have any problems, I’ll be using that warranty to the maximum extent.To be honest, drum mags are notoriously unreliable... but so are Kimbers.
I hadn't seen it, LOL!In case anyone hasn't seen it yet...
Ah, yes, the local Glock zealot weighs in again.
Stupid design issues...MIAMI (CBS4) – A never before released report by the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office raises questions about the reliability of the Glock semi-automatic handgun used by its deputies.
Obtained by CBS4 News, the confidential sheriff’s department document outlines a series of incidents in which problems with the Glock firing pin caused the gun to malfunction and not fire.
Issued by the department’s armorer, or gun expert, the March 13 report is titled simply: Firing Pin Issue. In each case where there was a misfire, the gun was taken apart and the firing pin was found to be cracked or chipped.
The report includes photos of the failed firing pins.
The problems were found primarily in the Glock 40 caliber, but also showed up in the 9 mm. So far all of the incidents occurred during training exercises. There have been no reports of the firing pin failing in the field.
Many people have sworn by the Glock brand for all of their handgun purchases. This particular firearm has left many owners wondering what happened to the brand and looking for all kind of aftermarket parts. Initially Glock renounced the issues with the firearm which surely lost them some lifetime customers. Finally they issued a recall which partially fixed the issues. While I am glad to see that Glock took responsibility for the problems, it does not excuse the poor design.
WTF?!!?!?!?! Issues:The Glock 19 was initially fitted with a thick, 17 pound single recoil spring. This is sturdy enough to last as long as you would ever need it to. In fact, many people replaced the single recoil spring with a lighter recoil spring for competition shooting, and still never had issues with reliability. However, Glock decided to replace this single recoil spring with the double recoil spring in the Gen 4. Their intention was to reduce the recoil felt when firing the Glock 19.
The primary issue is that the dual recoil spring was so powerful that it was causing jams. As stated above, Glock initially denied the issue saying that owners were using poor quality ammunition that caused the jams. However, roughly two years after the release of the Gen 4 Glock admitted that there was a problem and issued a recall on the recoil spring. This issue has been the primary complaint specific to the Glock 19 Gen 4.
Glock 42 barrel (and other) problems:Our source stated that the slides were falling off during dry fire training due to a potential issue with the recoil spring assembly and/or the slide lock. IMPD has recalled all issued Glock 17Ms to include the one that TFB was leaked photos of due to the problem.
Last time I checked, my local range had pulled all Glock 42 rentals as they all had problems.Ever since I posted a story from a reader about stoppages and other problems with his Glock 42, I’ve been inundated by complaints from other owners of the highly-anticipated pistol.
The original story involved barrel damage, which Glock said was caused by bad ammo, even though the owner said he only used factory rounds.
His local dealer agreed to pay for a new barrel, but that could take a long time.glock_42_ui4250201
“I spoke with a customer service person at Glock in Smyrna, Georgia and was informed that the barrel for the G42 is produced in Austria with a waiting period of 6 to 8 weeks before barrels are shipped, and that all barrel replacements must bear the stock number in which to coincide with the stock number for the gun,” the gun owner told me. “So the G42 that I purchased back in January means that I will not have my gun back until April 2014. I also called Glock in Austria and we’ll see if I get a call back or not. Not very good customer service.”
Other owners told me of stoppages and malfunctions regardless of the type of ammo they use. They’re pissed and frustrated. Some said even ball ammo will jam, stove-pipe and fail to feed.
I decided it was time to hear Glock’s side.
I first tried to email the firm. Evidently, other folks are trying to get their questions answered too, as this pop-up jumped out when I went to their contact form: “We are currently receiving very high email volume through the Contact Us form. We are working to address all inquiries as fast as possible, and we appreciate your understanding in any delay you might experience.”
I called the firm’s technical services department and left a message, identifying myself as a journalist seeking answers about the G42.
Neither the email nor the phone call have produced a response from Glock.
You posted old news about Springfield that the originating source was reposting just to stir shit up and recommending Glocks as a result. Did you not even read the entire exchange?I posted about Springfield specifically and the majority of your post was bashing Glock. Kinda says everything right there.
Is there a reason you devoted so much time to bashing Glock but not Beretta or CZ? Because all three were mentioned as being superior to the Springfield (which, incidentally, I agree with on quality alone, never mind the fact that Springfield sold gun owers out).You posted old news about Springfield that the originating source was reposting just to stir shit up and recommending Glocks as a result. Did you not even read the entire exchange?