If you accessed this page directly from a Search Engine, please click here to go to our home page.

Rifles, MilSpec, civilian and Target - Our core activity has been the manufacture of our own design precision rifles, the products displayed in these pages. We do not make use of other commercially available actions or major parts unless specifically demanded by the customer. Of course we can provide other brand name firearms and equipment through our dealership network.

Accessories and Support - We also manufacture to our own designs a line of support and accessory equipment - repeatable zero return, quick detachable sight mounts and target acquisition bracketry - adjustable bipods, monopods/buttstock rests, adjustable cheekpieces and sighting management equipment.

Special Projects - The weapons clearing station displayed on our mainpage is one of our special application projects. These ballistic traps were designed, then manufactured to meet an exacting requirement of the Qld. Police Service. Series production for a State wide supply regime was achieved at quoted cost and before time throughout the supply regime. Our fast track prototyping/development/production capability allows us to manage dispersed, multi disciplinary projects.

Are we Q.A.’d?

We usually take this question to mean, "Have we created, implemented, and continue to operate and maintain a Quality Assurance programme complying with acknowledged standards". The answer is, "Yes".

Like many people in industry who have gained accreditation; Q.A. does not interest me in the abstract sense. The PRACTICAL implications of Q.A. however are another matter, especially when we at PRS require verification of maintenance of standards from OUR suppliers of goods and services.

Our Q.A. manual defines elements relating to core activities - the nuts and bolts approach of manufacturing our standard products. We have created pathways, as defined within the document, to manage the issues of special projects, especially those dictated by Government procurement.

What is your assessment of the present defence ‘climate’ in Australia?

Defence is a risky business. I have read enough history to know that most commanders concluded that the only certainty met upon the field of conflict is the totally unexpected.

Defence customers are not too different from others worldwide. They want to minimise project risk, operate equipment of the latest technology and gain good value for money.

The present defence environment has strained the National budget sufficiently to require some reallocation of resources and expenditure.

Electronics and microprocessors have brought about massive changes to the way we do things throughout our society. Modern defence electronics systems and computer games seem to evolve hand in hand. Future electronics developments may create an environment where ultra high tech devices are extremely user friendly, cheap and commonplace, where extremely powerful modularised equipment is available to all sectors of the community.

Defence organisations may very well find themselves in the situation of discovering that the next generation of costly electronics fit is completely superceded in exactly the same way that the armoured knight, the battleship, the main battle tank and the air superiority fighter, in their time, became obsolescent. This is the natural order of things; except that in the modern world the process has become somewhat accelerated.

The question of the moment is about - not ‘high tech, nor low tech. It is about what correct mix of high and low technologies will meet the most scenarios for the next few months - for, in a very short time, the entire situation will probably have changed.

In parallel with societal changes brought about by technology lie other issues. What are modern soldiers? Are they warriors quite prepared to accept more than reasonable risk while strong arming the policies of their Nation State - or are they 'supercharged' police dedicated towards finding the minimum response necessary to dampen outbursts of
unwarranted aggression?

The answers to these questions are many and varied. Most claim to look forward to a future world when disagreement can be solved by negotiation and conciliation. In the meantime the individuals figured on the arrest list of Nation A are usually different from those listed by Nation B. This basic, continued, difference precludes police from assuming the role of arbiters of National or International Policy.

So, for the time being, soldiers remain more warrior than policeman. They deserve the means to defend themselves adequately and efficiently, also the capability through superior available technology to force victory as rapidly and efficiently as possible.

In an imperfect world it remains the job of National Defence Establishments to provide these means. The best way of affording these means is by Defence actively and aggressively supporting National Industry. There may actually be people out there, in country, able to provide some of those solutions to Defence’s escalating projects costs problems - able to offer that ‘right mix’ of technologies, reliably, and at the right price.

How does local industry fit into this picture?

It is easy for people to gain the wrong idea about technology. Many believe that if a thing is not complicated then it is ‘old hat’, is finished, is surplus to requirements.

Have a look inside most modern domestic electronics - radio, television, computer. There is more weight in the power supply or batteries than in the actual electronics. The whole works has usually been reduced to a couple of plastic strips connected to a very small circuit board. The whole thing looks ridiculously simple - until you have to repair it.

Replace the word ‘repair’ with ‘manufacture’ - then modify that to ‘manufacture in jig time’ during defence emergency. Suddenly the simple device becomes an insoluble supply problem.

Australia simply, totally, lacks the capacity to perform feats of ‘import replacement’ during normal times. The events of the last few months have pointed the floodlights at our inadequacy. Without even discussing problems with major projects like submarines and helicopters and how do we keep F111’s flying when we are the world’s only operators - without discussing these issues what can we manage when the ‘War Against Terrorism’ creates unprecedented share activity among the ‘Big Defence Players’. I would suggest our leaders have to forget about Australia being "a small Nation". If we persist in driving towards "Private Industry Involvement in Defence" then insist upon only purchasing from the ‘Big Players’ - we can expect to miss out when these conglomerates are temporarily distracted by sudden market changes. Increased market opportunities means increased stock market activity, means company takeovers, means corporate restructuring, means massive shifts in priorities - means more risks, also extra and escalating costs for Defence Establishments.

Does this mean we support closed, Government owned Defence manufacturing?

By no means. Governments, including the Australian, would find it impossible to support such structures. As with technologies, Government and Defence need to find the means to support the right mix of technologies. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by hoping, against history, hoping that we can pick and choose only ‘acceptable’ and ‘politically correct’ defence projects. The Defence Establishment must get it’s act together to support local industry.

Private venture projects have time and again proven pivotal to the course of conflict. Parsons’ steam turbine, Von Ohain and Whittle the gas turbine, Christy’s A.F.V. suspension/track system - might make handy examples.

Sir Charles Parsons had to embarrass the Admiralty into action by zig zagging at 34 knots through twenty five miles of assembled warships at the Spithead Review in 1897. Von Ohain in Germany and Whittle in Britain both met with ‘Official Discouragement’; some apparent disbelief that an aircraft would fly without a propellor. Christy got wise and sold both his concept and hardware to Soviet Russia.

These examples illustrate technologies that were right for their time. They would all have been developed soon enough anyway - by others - by others ‘borrowing’ their groundwork. The concepts have all gone forwards to reap tremendous benefits in peaceful applications around the world. Peacetime spinoffs of defence work pay handsomely for beneficiaries. Like most devices of our modern world the original concepts required refining through the attention of multi disciplinary development teams, something that could only be achieved after much grief and anguish spent overcoming that aforementioned ‘Official Discouragement’.

And if some official latches onto those two words "by others" in the paragraph above; then declares, "Well, that’s okay then. Just so long as someone keeps inventing new toys for us to play with". In that case, confronted with yet another example of ‘Official Discouragement’, I rest my case. individual effort is thus negated, and society is compromised beyond all recall.

In country defence industry is vital to the national well being. Mark my words. If we, one glorious day, manage to abolish war - something like defence industry will have to be artificially created to maintain some sense of dynamism, of purpose, within society.

Is ‘technical Risk’ an important issue?

Arthur C. Clarke once declared something like, "The more advanced a civilisation, the less tenuous it’s artifacts". He probably meant that Roman marble lasts longer in the soil than modern plastics. Referring to "The Encyclopedia of Military History", R.E. & T.N. Dupoy, we find that Rome was averse to changing military organisation or tactics over the centuries. Obviously they wanted to avoid ‘Technical Risk’ in defence matters. They, in result, were forced to accept changes to their power structure and political organisation. They, incidentally, changed capital cities a few times. Most ‘Romanophiles’ avoid calling this stagnation, decline, dispersal and defeat though now it seems to read much that way.

Why pretend we can do better? Technical risk is the price we all pay for development and progress. Changes must be made to our equipment and changes must be made to the way we utilise available equipment. Why use a magnetic compass when you have a G.P.S. in your pocket? The bushwalker will find that the batteries last as long in that G.P.S. as will he, without water, in the Australian bush. It helps if he has remembered to charge the batteries. Moral of the story? Changes in technology and application of technology demand changes in attitude and changes in mode of operation.

In real terms though, what about these issues - project risks, Q.A., their interrelationship?

We design and develop the products we manufacture and therefore have the advantages of total project control at less cost to the customer. We do not utilise other people's componentry within our rifles other than the specific exception of the products of our excellent barrel suppliers. That is our advantage. We design the products we manufacture to utilise standard available materials sections. We process the materials sections used in manufacture in such a way that handling is minimised, waste is minimised, machine cuts are simplified using standard available tooling. We achieve this through excellent design.

The accuracy of our firearms products is of prime importance. Firearms are dynamic systems and sometimes this accuracy standard cannot be achieved without careful attention to subtle design elements. This necessitates an progressively evolutionary development approach.

This approach applies throughout our system of operations - guided, aided and abetted by our Q.A, system. Product systems operability is assured, reliability is assured, through life support is assured - for our entire range of products.

Are our products MilSpec?

Yes. We retain comprehensive documentation/Military standards. We adopt these as part and parcel of the design process. Our products comply with published data and therefore meet the present specification, test requirements and performance expectations of our Military. Additionally. Much of our product line has been developed to tender requirement. It would be difficult to get more MilSpec than this.

Are we defence/security suppliers?

Yes. We have supplied to Australia. Yes. We have exported. Yes. We have supplied an Australian State Police Service.