Kevin did you just make 40million?

Mark_H · Post by **Mark_H** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:33 pm

A month ago they posted if delays in silencers kept us from buying. 83% said yes and now they have a 40 million dollar deal. It didn't take long to find a investor to help buy more machines to pump out silencers! Way to go AAC for listening to their users!

viewtopic.php?t=41890

WhiteBuffalo · Post by **WhiteBuffalo** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:37 pm

Mark_H wrote:A month ago they posted if delays in silencers kept us from buying. 83% said yes and now they have a 40 million dollar deal. It didn't take long to find a investor to help buy more machines to pump out silencers! Way to go AAC for listening to their users!

viewtopic.php?t=41890

I'll be... you may be on to something...

c111 · Post by **c111** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:07 pm

If true, this can be a VERY good thing. First of all, just because Cerberus is buying AAC doesn't mean that current AAC mangement/employees are going to be thrown out. A lot of times, they keep the management team in place, especially if they're doing a good job in the first place.

More importantly, AAC has stated in the past that they haven't put out a certain product (aka Blackbox) because they couldn't sell enough units to break even or make a profit. With Cerberus' portfolio of other companies, I wouldn't be surprised if they have resources and contacts with military/LEO to leverage a large order. If that's true, we civilians will get a Blackbox.

And as a previous poster mentioned, if Cerberus invests properly in AAC capital and increases production capacity, we might not have to place an order and wait for our suppressors to be made. If Cerberus implements a JIT (just in time) manufacturing process or some equivalent, I think a lot of buyers will be quite happy.

So all I can see are upsides...

chrismartin · Post by **chrismartin** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:33 pm

I could be mistaken, but I think I read on the interwebs that cerebus was going to buy Gemtech for that sweet lanyard contract.

BWT · Post by **BWT** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:47 pm

They did just get contracted to make the new ACR Silencer, which would make sense if Cerberus acquired them, as they also own Remington.

We'll see... I hope the Company stays the same, I'm kind of going to be disappointed if this is true.

I hope Kevin can keep some control of the company.

Twinsen · Post by **Twinsen** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:34 pm

Branded for Life would suck if they dropped the AAC name and logos.

MacBookProAR · Post by **MacBookProAR** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:38 pm

There was an update and it looks like it was just a rumor

http://www.defensereview.com/rumor-mill ... llion-40m/

Mark_H · Post by **Mark_H** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:06 pm

Rumors like this make me glade AAC does not sell stock. I was just watching a report from Frontline about the stock market "Frontline: Inside the Meltdown" and one thing they talked about is how a rumor can and does bankrupt a company. I know a few people on ar15 (linked in this thread) said they had inside information. I wonder if AAC will take legal action.

I was really hoping for a happy outcome of more money put in to tooling to create more silencers. I hope that we will still see that someday.

elcapo · Post by **elcapo** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:08 pm

If it's a rumor, then why has nobody from AAC spoken up? =) They are just as chatty as the rest of you guys, so there must have been some message from above to stay quiet on the subject.

PS. I just bought my Element today, woot.

Poacher · Post by **Poacher** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:23 pm

I have absolutely no inside knowledge but my first thought was that 40 million is alot of money but I think some of AAC's recent contracts probably exceed that amount so it seems way too cheap for purchasing an innovative, dynamic company that has done more for silencers in the past few years than had been done in recent history.

Illuminated_one · Post by **Illuminated_one** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:30 pm

pneumagger wrote:Maybe they'll put out the blackbox...

Or it'll get the Masada/ACR treatment.

Mark_H · Post by **Mark_H** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:34 pm

elcapo wrote:If it's a rumor, then why has nobody from AAC spoken up? =) They are just as chatty as the rest of you guys, so there must have been some message from above to stay quiet on the subject.

PS. I just bought my Element today, woot.

Kevin from AAC came out and said it was not true. The link was posted above this but I will post it again.

http://www.defensereview.com/rumor-mill ... llion-40m/

Addendum/Update 8/25/09: DefenseReview managed to reach Advanced Armament Corp. (AAC) owner Kevin Brittingham by phone today, and we were able to confirm that Cerberus has NOT acquired AAC. So, the rumor thatâ€™s been floating around out there about it is untrue. So, rumor debunked. Makes you wonder who put that rumor out there and why. If anyoneâ€™s got any info on it, weâ€™d like to find out. Editorâ€™s Note: AAC makes great products, so it wouldnâ€™t surprise us in the least if a larger company indeed wanted to acquire them. AACâ€™s stuff is solid.

SC-Texas · Post by **SC-Texas** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:40 pm

Ya know . . . . why should Kevin Talk?

This is great publicity whether it is true or not.

hemi · Post by **hemi** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:40 pm

Meh- I edited this one out...... it doesn't matter.

WhiteBuffalo · Post by **WhiteBuffalo** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:49 am

Mark_H wrote:Rumors like this make me glade AAC does not sell stock. I was just watching a report from Frontline about the stock market "Frontline: Inside the Meltdown" and one thing they talked about is how a rumor can and does bankrupt a company. I know a few people on ar15 (linked in this thread) said they had inside information. I wonder if AAC will take legal action.

I was really hoping for a happy outcome of more money put in to tooling to create more silencers. I hope that we will still see that someday.

THere seems to be 3 people there who talked as to having insider info, with two claiming to have talked to "the owner". I'd like to hear just what owner they were jib-jabbing with.

TypeR632 · Post by **TypeR632** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:18 am

I'm sure some of you are ok with a sell. But personally I hope they don't.

MAJ MALFUNCTION · Post by **MAJ MALFUNCTION** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:24 am

hemi wrote:

LOL!

CanNotHear · Post by **CanNotHear** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:31 am

I wonder why the SCAR-H SD is only being sold to Military and LEO...

brazos609 · Post by **brazos609** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:02 am

CanNotHear wrote:I wonder why the SCAR-H SD is only being sold to Military and LEO...

Who ever said that? I and many others have gotten a SCAR-H SD, the 51-tooth version, not the 18-tooth version the Army is apparently issuing with the MK17(SCAR-H rifle).

CanNotHear · Post by **CanNotHear** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:11 pm

New policy.

joshsc · Post by **joshsc** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:50 pm

CanNotHear wrote:New policy.

Any info/details on this?

ETA: Nevermind. Just saw the thread.

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:56 pm

WhiteBuffalo wrote:THere seems to be 3 people there who talked as to having insider info, with two claiming to have talked to "the owner". I'd like to hear just what owner they were jib-jabbing with.

I am going to guess people were just stirring ARFCOM s--t based on the Defense Review article. It was certainly out of bounds for them to run a rumor for a story. Should have confirmed it first.

Note also nobody actually had any details and just about everybody went out of their way to not even name anybody or anything - because nobody had any facts.

I mean, how hard is to say I got the call? That is the fun of rumors, anybody can play.

It was fun, now back to reality.

Gotta go, I see "WHCA" on the Caller ID!

TOOL1075 · Post by **TOOL1075** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:21 pm

if this is true, maybe we'll start to see a development from this:

Kevin/AAC wrote:
MaverickH1 wrote:How about instead of making a new can, take on a lawsuit attacking the constitutionality of making suppressors so extremely regulated.

Talk about a way to increase sales if you get that overturned...

But I understand it could hurt sales if the gov't starts hating your company...

Extremely wishful thinking on my part.
"When we are rich"...I want to have them re-classified as AOW's and institute an instance background check.

(posted in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=27021&postdays=0&postor ... pc&start=0 )

Diomed · Post by **Diomed** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:06 am

renegade wrote:
WhiteBuffalo wrote:THere seems to be 3 people there who talked as to having insider info, with two claiming to have talked to "the owner". I'd like to hear just what owner they were jib-jabbing with.
I am going to guess people were just stirring ARFCOM s--t based on the Defense Review article. It was certainly out of bounds for them to run a rumor for a story. Should have confirmed it first.

Note also nobody actually had any details and just about everybody went out of their way to not even name anybody or anything - because nobody had any facts.

I mean, how hard is to say I got the call? That is the fun of rumors, anybody can play.

It was fun, now back to reality.

Gotta go, I see "WHCA" on the Caller ID!

Your dicking with people in the arfcom thread was pretty awesome. "The owner called and told me personally", that's some righteous s--t there.

Army Chief · Post by **Army Chief** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:12 am

I understand the stated concerns about brand identity and such, but even if negotiations are ongoing -- which simply hasn't been addressed -- I am not about to equate a potential buyout with disaster. Far from it.

The whole purpose of negotiations is to deal with concerns like this, and Kevin is arguing from a position of strength here; as such, I'm confident that any potential buyout would involve terms that would only leave the company stronger, and more competitive. I don't know AAC's business model, but this is first and foremost a business decision, and an infusion of new capital with an even stronger connection to the ACR project, potential military contracts, and other future developments could only be viewed as a step forward, no?

Bottom line? Whatever happens, I don't see Team AAC forgetting about the loyal customer base that put them into a position to take advantage of this kind of growth opportunity. I'm not going to lose any sleep over these kinds of behind-the-scenes developments.

AC