redleg said:
That would then beg the question of why the trials took place in the first place. Could they just not have ordered what they wanted without the charade?
Yes James, they could have. As a former serving soldier, you know that as well as I do. The entire MRSW question could have been sorted out in a rather short/sharp user trial involving the folks who will ultimately employ the system. But that is not the long and overly convoluted road that we chose (or were Treasury Board-mandated) to go down, is it?? Without getting into the whole mess, we both know that there are MANY, many more official and personal concerns associated with selection of the PGW rifle and (later) the optics.
It is what it is, and at the end of the day there are many bruised feelings/missed opportunities/etc. But will our snipers have what they need for the job? I think so. And if operational effectiveness is the bottom line, then I as a serving member of the operational chain am content.
We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds in terms of timely and/or reliable system maintenance for what amounts to a custom rifle. My unit has recently given up its sole .50 Macbros rifle as "BLR" because the barrel is shot out. Yes, it is the barrel that "made the shot". But at the end of the day, it is just another "custom" weapon that has to go back to the manufacturer for refit, without a ready replacement available to the users.
Yeah, an operational stock of spare weapons would alleviate the problem, but we all know that such stock does not exist for specialist weapons. And operations take precedence for kit. So units in Canada are left holding the bag with non-functional (but deemed mission-essential) equipment never to be replaced. Go figure....
The things that make you go "Hmmmm"
Clicks or turns?
