Don't buy a CheyTac product!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Boberama

member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
384
From the Cheyenne Tactical website:

The CheyTac M-200 changed the world of military sniper deployment and took on all competitors breaking the Best Group All Distance World's Record. Since that time consumers have wanted the M-200 but we at CheyTac Associates have a duty to those who serve and as such we never want our incredible technology to fall into the wrong hands. Therefore we developed the M-200 CIV to have the same look and feel of the Military version but in a package that keeps the extreme distance edge with the front line forces of the US and our allies. See the Press Release when we introduced the M-200 CIV.

What's the point of buying a neutered rifle for 14,000 dollars?

I hope CheyTac goes bankrupt.
 
dude I dont even think about 14,000 dollar anything, so it doesnt bother me in the least.

Live on and let them do whatever they want.
 
I think they should take a page from Barretts book instead.
 
wow. I took at look at what he was talking about, sheesh. Looks like someone with a CNC 101 class went to work on that stock as his midterm project lol.

Not what I would spend 14k on.
 
This is reminiscient of when the US .gov/.mil used to scramble the GPS signal to civilians so that our civvy devices could get a *close* reading (within 10 meters), but not super close like they could (within 1 meter).

This is even worse, where a private company is discriminating against citizens / civilians. So I agree, they should be like Barrett - and until they do, screw 'em.
 
Just one more case of 'it's the Indian, not the arrow' as far as I'm concerned. I used to work in the same organization as the person who did their early field testing. Anyone who can shoot like he can isn't going to be terribly limited by that decision. And for someone like me, it isn't going to make any difference anyway, unless they build a gun that shoots itself.

lpl
 
Given the title i thought CheyTac'd be anti-2A or anti-puppies&kittens. Hoping they go bankrupt is a bit extreme for offering an overpriced second rate product.

It would stand to reason they make a second-tier price for it, since it is the second tier. This is their choice; so if they lose market-share TS. That's why we enjoy a free market.
 
I have no problem with export prohibition of items that may be sensitive or useful to our enemies but can't agree with domestic prohibition to citizens.
 
Is this current info? I can't find any reference to a civilian version of the M200 more recent than 2007...
 
This is reminiscient of when the US .gov/.mil used to scramble the GPS signal to civilians so that our civvy devices could get a *close* reading (within 10 meters), but not super close like they could (within 1 meter).

Not sure you know this about GPS, but you need a daily updated key to decrypt the P(Y) code to get within 1M resolution. This is still only available to .gov/.mil. Civilians still only get C/A code, with 10M resolution. When Pres. Clinton turned off Selective Availability, we went from 100M to 10M civilian resolution.

Sorry for being off topic.
 
Why go there when you could get a .416 Barrett or a .50 BMG from Barrett. I know Cheytac has the distinction of being the most accurate at range, but if you can't get that gun why spend that kind of money. Take the 14K you would have spent on the Cheytac and get a Barrett for less money and you'll have money left over for optics and ammo. :)
 
Reminds me of Correia's line about HK's stance on the civi market.

Civi Market: Why won't you sell us your rifle?
CheyTac: Because you suck. And we hate you.
 
I am with Ian on this one. I just checked out their site have could not find any information as to the claim made by the OP. Can you provide a link to where that quote is taken?

And even if it is true I would still buy their rifle because I want one. There are maybe 3 people on this entire forum that can shoot well enough to see a difference at the ranges an M200 is capable of. And most of us can not afford the rifle in the first place. So really the point is moot as far as I am concerned. But that is just me.
 
I would be curious to know if they have been doing this since the rifle first came out. If not, then I bet the price of the "unmodified" version on the used market is significantly higher.
 
Good product, but I agree-- I wouldn't pay that for them. I would love a Barrett 98B--while high, its a fraction of the price...
 
It's not on their site anymore, but I will second that I have seen the same statement on their official website in the past.

I, RX-178 of TheHighRoad.Org, officially state that I have seen this same comment on the official website of Cheyenne Tactical, some time in the past, prior to their recent website redesign. (Insert Signature Here)
 
The local gun store had one and sold it pretty fast.

Badass looking rifle, still wouldn't buy that kind of rifle for where I live. Maybe if I lived out west and could take some long shots and really use it. Around here a 200 yard range is about all thats around.
 
Since it doesn't seem to bother too many people, maybe other rifle manufacturers should start putting range limiting technology on their rifles. Strictly for our safety of course!;)
 
Something to note, it isn't ILLEGAL to have or buy. It isn't ILLEGAL to sell. What is stopping a dealer from selling you one anyway? (If there were significant demand for the sucker in the first place.)

Remember for years, Remington said that their 700 PSS rifles were manufactured for LE/military only, but that didn't stop dealers from selling them to everyone anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top