The 300 aac doesn't do anything that you can't get done with a pistol caliber carbine.
My Worries
Collapse
X
-
Gents,
After reading through Satern's site, I noticed that Satern markets/sells Liberty's barrels for them, since Liberty does not have their own website. If you are a barrel-maker and want to cater to a national target market, and you don't have a website, you are way behind the power curve. In my opinion, that screams unprofessional.
I never had really heard of Satern in any other reference outside the Grendel, so who will this really hurt in the long run? I have heard of Krieger, Obermeyer, Bartlein, Lothar Walther, Shilen, Douglas, etc. for many years. I have experienced great results with pipes from Krieger, Bartlein, and Obermeyer.
If I'm having a precision barrel made, Bartlein and GA Precision are my go-to guys usually. Some other enterprising makers will see a market opportunity for Grendel barrels and fill the demand, which is only growing. I'm not a Grendel cool-aid drinker, just calling out the facts as I have seen them with this cartridge over the past few years. If you had read some of the threads before the forum was maliciously attacked last year, especially when brass was being eaten up at blistering speeds, you would have seen complaint after complaint about brass availability, which is no longer an issue.
That tells me from a business market analysis perspective that the popularity is only increasing. If some people in the gun business are allergic to money (a very common problem in the firearms industry), then they can make whatever decisions they want and work with the results of those decisions...less business activity, less demand of their products, etc.
As Pinzgauer noted, there are some irregularities that indicate ownership of the problem from the lack of specifying why contracts are being terminated. It is strange that nobody is telling us: "Hey, AA has too high of a licensing fee, which isn't worth it to us to meet the demand we have right now." or, "We're just tired of making all this money, and we want to retire." or, "AA imposed some change to the contract that we feel is untenable, so we politely chose to terminate."
Who really cares. There are plenty of barrel-makers out there who love making customers happy, regardless of what chambering they ask for, and they offer whatever you want. Time to move on, nothing more.
LRRPF52
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ID Tactical View PostMaybe Satern will start making .264LBC barrels on June 2nd. The same outstanding barrels & performance with none of the licensing fees...
Comment
-
-
There are no Grendel licensing fees, which has been pointed out previously. Licensing agreements covered quality, marketing, and insurance issues.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by longdayjake View PostOkay well this brings up a good question. I can't see how so many barrel makers would want to stop making the 6.5 grendel if it was mostly free to do so. LBC used to make the Grendel until it decided to do its own version. Satern and Liberty are now out of the game. What is it about the licensing agreement that is so hard for these companies to agree to? Insurance companies?Last edited by Guest; 05-31-2011, 05:12 PM.
Comment
-
-
There has been lots of speculation as to why Satern chose not to renew the agreement, but they have chosen to issue only the statement previously noted. Since speculation is essentially useless, I'm not sure that this thread really serves much purpose in that regard.
Lets keep this on the OP's original thoughts.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by warped View Post...
There may be a development this year that makes the Grendel a true mainstay of all shooting for decades to come.
Even without cheap, steel case plinking fodder, I took the Grendel plunge for many of the aforementioned reasons. Low recoil, nice external ballistics, good small game performance, and all that chambered in the AR-15 sounds like a recipe for success to me.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by bwaites View PostThere has been lots of speculation as to why Satern chose not to renew the agreement, but they have chosen to issue only the statement previously noted. Since speculation is essentially useless, I'm not sure that this thread really serves much purpose in that regard.
Lets keep this on the OP's original thoughts.
Comment
-
Comment