Sean Herron

But adopting the UCAS will deliver the following advantages.

Interoperability, seamless interfacing of back panels and front flaps from one manufacturer with carriers from another.

Operational flexibility, enables units to adopt best-in-class equipment without blah, blah, blah.

Cost efficiency, simplifies acquisition and replacement logistics, reducing overall spending.

And I think this is a really like a noble calling as long as there's not one provider of those things.

And it's just basically standards that are easily allowable and adoptable across different companies and things like that.

But standardizing stuff makes a lot of sense and would be fantastic for the consumer, even if it is maybe perceived as negative for a manufacturer, right?

And I wanted to get you guys' kind of thoughts on this and see if you thought this was a good idea, a bad idea, what would be good about it, and what would possibly be bad.

I'll start with you, Bob.

Yeah, and I agree, and it kind of pisses me off because you and Gideon Optics are very much kind of like the same situation.

You've got to support 85 different attachment mechanisms because everyone's stupid and tries to make their own system when Springfield actually has the best system out there, and everyone should adopt that.

But it should be RMSE, RMR, maybe if everyone adopts the Springfield Echelon Viz, that would be a good thing.

But then you've got...

MOS and doctor and DPP.

I mean, not even one necessarily, just a couple because you have different size slides.

Yes.

Yeah.

And I mean, here's the thing, like as a consumer.

I would definitely invest in companies that worked within this, um, standardization across connectivity and things like that, because that just means that I can use whatever company I want and I'm not like stuck with anybody.

Um, I mean, ACE tech does a pretty good job, like a really good job.