Why such a price contrast between civilian equivalent military rifles?

[Urban_Ops]

I'm talking about this XCR. The only XCR labeled "XCR Tactical"

Hmm, looks like a hunting rifle and it ain't black or green.

 

[Glock4ever]

Actually the none of the answers given above were correct. Unit price of rifles/eqpt purchased by the military are not figured solely on the actual unit cost. For instance, everyone here is saying that they can go out and build an M24/M40 clone for X dollars. The military doesn't just purchase a rifle, the military purchases a contract for a Sniper Weapons System. If you look at the recent contract that PGW won you will see what I mean. PGW doesn't provide solely a rifle but as well a scope, case, cleaning rod and all the other goodies in a Sniper Weapon System, and lastly servicing/expertise on the system to the Military. So when you figure the unit price that the military will cough up it seems really high but it incorporates a number of other extras that the lone civilian shooter does not get.

 

[Armedsask]

Hmm, looks like a hunting rifle and it ain't black or green.

I wondered why some one was actually comparing the M24 to the XCR. I just figured the guy was a bit of a ham bone.

In that case, disregard everything I've said in this thread and perhaps take the question to Precision Rifles where all those bolt action losers hang out.

 

[spi]

...PGW doesn't provide solely a rifle but as well a scope, case, cleaning rod and all the other goodies in a Sniper Weapon System, and lastly servicing/expertise on the system to the Military...

Not to mention spare parts, which I thought factored into the price of the rifle.

 

[nickorette]

I wondered why some one was actually comparing the M24 to the XCR. I just figured the guy was a bit of a ham bone.

In that case, disregard everything I've said in this thread and perhaps take the question to Precision Rifles where all those bolt action losers hang out.

Yeah, some ham bones took this thread so far off topic it belongs in the Precision Rifles catagory.

I just used those two as an example. Could have used the G36C and the SL8, but you can't really get the G36C, so I'm not sure if you can compare prices

 

[troutseeker]

Hey Armedsask... "10% of all Canadian law enforcement officers have sufficient skill to shoot in a civilian pistol competition. .01% have any chance of winning. There is a .01% margin for error." This is possibly correct when talking of pistol shooting. The average police officer spends way less time shooting his duty pistol that the freaks on the IPSC ranges.

Now, this thread was about rifles was it not? I would venture to say that ALL ERT snipers in Canada will beat out competitive shooters in what they are trained to do. 1 cold bore shot under tremendous pressure in any condition to a max distance of 300 meters. I dont know many civilian shooters who would even take to shot, you've got to be absolutely sure when you pull the trigger. There are no "do-overs" or next relay when a life hangs in the balance.

Troutseeker

 

[kthomas]

I dare say you could probably take any 700 action and have a rifle that would be the same or superior to the M24, if in the hands of the right gunsmith for around the same price or slightly less. But it would be a "one of" and with no guarantee of its reliability, accuracy & no built in "liability factor" that a major manufacturer can provide. ie. the thing won't deviate under different conditions. I think thats how these manufacturers can market these rifles to military & police with a higher price tag. They are superior rifle to their hunting brother but for a civillian, he could probably get the samething with a reworked 700.

Not 100% true, but it is a good point none the less. A company out of the states takes remington 700 action's and blueprint them to their specs, chop the barrels down to 18-20" and place them in mcmillian stocks (in a nutshell, they do a lot more to the rifles then just that). They have a lifetime warranty and garuantee 1/4 MOA, though most of their units will shoot 1/8-1/16 MOA. I have heard that one of the units belonging to an LE agency (i think it was an LE agency) in the states has over 10,000 rounds through the gun (no new parts since pruchase) and the gun has only opened up to 1/2 MOA.

Im sure some of you have heard of this company, Tactical Operations, 3w.tacticaloperations.com/

Boy would i love to have one of those

 

[DANCESWITHEMPTIES]

I don't claim to be an expert in military firearms. Thats why I stated "I think". Maybe I thought wrong... & Glock4ever makes very valid points. Not knowing that the military receives these rifles in as a "full package" would account for the higher price. I would "think" thats your answer to why military firearms are more expensive than the civillan models.

 

[AOWM]

Hey Armedsask... "10% of all Canadian law enforcement officers have sufficient skill to shoot in a civilian pistol competition. .01% have any chance of winning. There is a .01% margin for error." This is possibly correct when talking of pistol shooting. The average police officer spends way less time shooting his duty pistol that the freaks on the IPSC ranges.

Now, this thread was about rifles was it not? I would venture to say that ALL ERT snipers in Canada will beat out competitive shooters in what they are trained to do. 1 cold bore shot under tremendous pressure in any condition to a max distance of 300 meters. I dont know many civilian shooters who would even take to shot, you've got to be absolutely sure when you pull the trigger. There are no "do-overs" or next relay when a life hangs in the balance.

Troutseeker

Sponsor a match and we can find out of course it should be from field shooting positions and timed and hey then you wont have to speculate anymore make it within reasonable driving distance and I'll help with your reaserch. "No do overs or next relay" IMO thats something someone would tell themselves to justify themselves not coming back to the next match and paying the price to actually win.

 

[Cappy]

Sponsor a match and we can find out of course it should be from field shooting positions and timed and hey then you wont have to speculate anymore make it within reasonable driving distance and I'll help with your reaserch. "No do overs or next relay" IMO thats something someone would tell themselves to justify themselves not coming back to the next match and paying the price to actually win.

Just ask who the top finishers have been the last few years in the BCRA Tac Rifle Competition, it has a good turn out and might save you the trouble......there are some incrediably good civilian and police shooters out there. Generally speaking when things go to hell weather wise or otherwise you can usually tell who the fellas are who do it for a living.

 

[Northman999]

Actually the none of the answers given above were correct. Unit price of rifles/eqpt purchased by the military are not figured solely on the actual unit cost. For instance, everyone here is saying that they can go out and build an M24/M40 clone for X dollars. The military doesn't just purchase a rifle, the military purchases a contract for a Sniper Weapons System. If you look at the recent contract that PGW won you will see what I mean. PGW doesn't provide solely a rifle but as well a scope, case, cleaning rod and all the other goodies in a Sniper Weapon System, and lastly servicing/expertise on the system to the Military. So when you figure the unit price that the military will cough up it seems really high but it incorporates a number of other extras that the lone civilian shooter does not get.

Not to mention that the military gets SCREWED on prices. Whether their prices are "corrected" to fund secret projects or they are just plain getting ripped off is something for the tinfoil hat people to sort out, but I've seen for myself the insane prices our military pays for stuff. Try $68.00 for a wiper blade for a common military vehicle, almost identical to a $12.00 Can Tire wiper blade, or $23.00 for a plain #2 Phillips screwdriver also available at any hardware store for $2.00. And the quartermasters aren't allowed to just go buy the same stuff from dowtown for 10 cents on the dollar either, as the DND wheels nned lots of greasing. While the public, and apparently staff payroll, think that DND is constantly broke, suppliers to DND have long been getting absurd prices for what they supply DND with.

 

[Leeper]

There you have it! Once a contractor has landed the contract he is licensed to bend the the Armed Forces over at every opportunity. There is nothing particularily special about the M24 or M40 except in the minds of those who admire all things military. The military pays big bucks for everyday items every day. They buy the unnecessary, the unusable, and the sub-standard with amazing regularity. It is then up to the man (or woman) in the field to try and get the equipment to work as required. I know this is so in the US an doubt it is any different in Canada.
When selling to the civilian market, a company is restricted to selling at a price determined by the market. Dressing a rifle up just like it's military counterpart increases perceived value to a certain extent but the consumer is still spending his own money so is likely to be a bit more frugal. Regards, Bill

 

[Glock4ever]

Northman, what you are describing isn't actually true. LPO (Local Purchase) are authorized in special situations but in general are frowned upon because it doesn't meet with the Federal Gov'ts policy of competition/spending. Many ppl think the Military is a hush hush organization with all sorts of secret stuff going on but in reality everything the military purchases is public knowledge. A few select organizations can protect secrecy under the freedom of information act but for the most part everything the military gets must be accounted for - if you think the Minister of Defense could stand up in the H of C and say that his dept spent 6 Billion but he doesn't know where that the public would be ok with that is ridiculous. Everything that the military purchases must be opened up for bidding/competition. It isn't the Military's policy but the Federal gov'ts. This is the exact reason why we have 2 different remote weapons systems (RWS) in the system with a third RWS coming in. None of the parts are compatible and it is a headache for the supply system to manage/supply/keep serviceable. This is not how the military would prefer to operate but it is a result of the competition system that the federal gov't put into place. Anyone here remember the spastastic response Quebec put in when the Military purchased the Globemasters? Even though Bombardier couldn't deliver what the military wanted (Strategic Lift) they complained that it wasn't put out to fair competition and they didn't get a fair shake. All those wiper blades and screw drivers you hear the Military getting raped on is because of this. There are many times in the military that specific types of equipment can't be purchased even though it makes more sense.

 

[Glock4ever]

Bill, unfortunately you are very wrong about your statements in regards to purchasing. Everyone here is looking at military purchases backwards. They see the end product and say that they could build X for better. What many ppl here are missing is the fact that Military-Private Ent Co-op R&D is what develops/invents new technologies. I could comfortably say that most of the modern technology that we have, has it's roots in Military-Privat Ent Co-op R&D: Internet, Radio, Sonar/Radar, repeating firearms, etc. etc. Currently the best eqpt is in use in Afghanistan/Iraq - what is substandard about the LAV III, RG-31 (Nyala), etc. Tactics change ppl! Don't think that because the military switched from the Iltis to the LUVDW that the Taliban weren't going to change their tactics. Now that we have switched from the LUVDW to the LAV III - TB tactics are changing as well. It is the nature of war. You ask any CF soldier what vehicle he would be riding in the answers will be the same: RG-31 followed by LAV III followed by LUVDW followed by ILTIS. There was nothing substandard about any of the vehicles because each vehicle was developed for a specific role. Unfortunately, there isn't enough money in the system to buy everything that the CF wants - just the nature of the beast. Back to purchasing: the CF has an effect/requirement list that it wants to achieve. For instance, CF Snipers require a new Medium range sniper weapon - so the CF will consult with the Master Snipers/Contractors/etc and come up with what the requirements are. For example:

1.) Range from 800-1200m
2.) Capable of ranging (scope)
3.) Must weigh under 15 lbs.
4.) etc. etc. etc.

Once the list is compiled it is put into competition with a stipulation like: we want 55 units @ no more then 10 million produced by no later then 2010. The companies start coming up with prototypes which they enter into competition. Once they enter their prototype it is tested and evaluated. Sometimes to "sell" their eqpt a company might offer little bonuses such as free/servicing parts for the next 5 years.

Nothing really secret here. Prices can change as manufacturers develop better ways to make their eqpt but in my mind it is a fair exchange as some companies will invest a ton to try and build something that was never built before. But ppl need to keep in mind the space/time issue. By the time the rifles are all delivered it might be 5 years down the road. Some young hotshot might have come along and taken original design to another level and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon saying the military should get it but contracts must be honored.

 

[Northman999]

Bill, unfortunately you are very wrong about your statements in regards to purchasing. Everyone here is looking at military purchases backwards. They see the end product and say that they could build X for better. What many ppl here are missing is the fact that Military-Private Ent Co-op R&D is what develops/invents new technologies...

New technologies like a $23.00 #2 Phillips screwdriver? I can buy a functionally identical one for $2.00 at any hardware store. Give me a break. I've seen the prices that quartermasters pay for many mundane items (I admit, exotic weapons weren't on there) and I was stunned by the prices. Often 5-10 times as much as I could go downtown and buy for. And the LPO thing is for emergencies like you said - if the item is available through the "system" they HAVE to get it through the system, that means $68.00 for a wiper blade and $23.00 for a plain screwdriver. How much R&D do you honestly think National Defense put into designing their #2 Phillips screwdrivers?

 

[Glock4ever]

Ah but Northman, as an example, the channel nose pliers in the LAV III isn't purchased seperately - it will be replaced as a "part" of the LAV III so - the QM must go back HQ and higher right on out to General Dynamics. GD will charge the CF whatever the heck the replacement price was based on original contracting prices. When have you seen a QM actually pull out 23.00 dollars and pay for a screwdriver? In fact when have you seen anyone in the CF pull out their wallet and pay for anything. Most everything in the CF is regulated by regulations, budgeting and contracting. It is all part and parcel of governmental policies. The Joint Strike Fighter Program is a perfect example. DND is kicking money into the development program with no guarantee on what variant we can purchase or what goodies will be available, if and when it comes out. There is even no guarantee that the JSF will even meet the requirements of what the CF may want BUT if DND wants to have a possibility of purchasing the JSF when it goes into production we are required to kick cash in now. Everybody wants to reap the benefits of kick ass technology but nobody wants to pay on the front end so many countries/companies are pushing agreements up front. I don't know if you are up to speed on pharmaceuticals but they do the same thing -- Many companies will develop a wonder drug and get sole production of the drug under their patent for X years after X years Generic copies are allowed to produced. Pharm Companies have to do this or another company would just copy it and sell it for cheap immediately - if this did not happen no company could afford to R&D new drugs. Just my 2 cents

 

[nickorette]

That makes sense. Everything is under a unit price contract for that vehicle. So maybe the wipes for a HMMV is 60 bucks, but that's to tie up for the tire bolts that they underpriced at $0.50 a piece.

That R&D makes sense too. The basic remington 700 might have cost millions to make, but over the years they've researched developments and improvements. The current model I'm sure has a lot of changes/refinements compared to when it first came out in the 60's.

 

[Leeper]

So, as I understand it, I should feel fine about civilian contractors fattening up at the public trough. I should feel good about it because of the existence of a long established system whereby taxpayers money is peed down the toilet. I should feel good about it because the system alows it. I should feel good about it because, military/ private enterprise co-operation has given us all the things a free market system cannot. I should feel OK because our politicians and our military and civilian bureaucrats, while they may seem to be spending pour tax money wastefully, are spending according to well established procedures. Waste can be explained but never justified.
The truth is, military requirements notwithstanding, you would have had to shoot John M Browning to stop him from inventing new firearms systems. That the military establishment was able to see the superiority of some of his developments had nothing to do with military/industrial co-operation.
Looking at the item which started this thread; let's examine to advancements/ refinements which military co-operation have given to the Remington 700. That would be zero. Nothing. The M24 is an adaptation of a civilian arm to a military application. Changes made to the M24 are adaptations of sportman developed modifications. The Remington 700 was conceived as a hunting rifle and adapted. The higher price paid by Uncle Sam for the M24 is a classic example of that old established system at work. That the goverment offered to pay a given amount, doesn't excuse the waste.
Whether or not the newest military vehicles are safer is a moot point. If they are, that's great but it isn't a reason to endorse wasteful spending practices, long established or not.
I always remember a single burner Colemen campstove which was US Army issue. On the supply manifest, this thing cost forty some dollars, the exact same stove, but red instead of green, was sold at the PX for 12.95. Now, it might be possible to justify this by saying thats just the way things are done but it does not excuse it.
In a very real sense, companies benefitting from the overspending by military comittees, are taking money which could be spent to benefit soldiers and their families. So I don't really care if there is a long history of private enterprise benefitting greatly from ill advised military spending, I don't have to like it. Regards, Bill.