LASER SHOT, INC. / PRIME-SIDE CAPTURE INTELLIGENCE • Research snapshot: October 9, 2026

MAK Technologies’ ACV crew-gunnery expansion may offer Laser Shot a technical partnering conversation.

Integrator: MAK Technologies, an ST Engineering company. Customer: U.S. Marine Corps. Activity: Amphibious Combat Vehicle Crew Gunnery Trainer (ACV-CGT), Phase 2 including ACV-30.

The opportunity

MAK announced that its Marine Corps ACV Crew Gunnery Trainer had completed Phase 1 and was moving to Phase 2. As the trainer expands toward ACV-30, Laser Shot can explore whether its simulated crew-served weapons, optics, weapon-handling hardware or scoring experience addresses a specific interface or training gap. The program activity is real. An unfilled component requirement or subcontract is not confirmed.

Why this is worth a closer look

Implementation signal: MAK’s September 30, 2026 Phase 2 announcement describes evolution of a U.S. Marine Corps ACV-CGT prototype into a broader crew-gunnery training capability, including work involving the ACV-30.
Subsystem-level rationale: More gunnery stations and variant fidelity raise practical questions about sight pictures, control interfaces, simulated triggers/weapon handling, training-event logging and after-action review. This is an engineering hypothesis, not a sourced MAK purchase requirement.
Product connection: Laser Shot’s Warrior Skills Trainer / Table II and military simulator portfolio includes simulated crew-served weapons, optics, gunnery environments and assessment. Its capabilities could warrant an interface conversation if they align with MAK’s architecture.
A competing signal: XR Training separately announced an April 2026 Marine Corps ACV-related prototype award. The relationship between XR Training and MAK activities is not established here; do not assume exclusivity or a sole-source prime path.

Where Laser Shot could fit—and the qualification test

Weapon/sight interface: test whether MAK needs supplementary mock gunnery controls, instrumented simulated weapons, optics representations or retrofit components. Laser Shot should compare actual WST/Table II interface specifications against MAK’s specific needs.
Gunnery scoring and feedback: determine whether Laser Shot’s scenario assessment or debrief experience could add value—or whether MAK’s simulation software already covers this end to end.
Supplemental low-footprint training: explore whether crew rehearsal outside a complete vehicle crew trainer presents a complementary package.
Deal-breaker to ask first: Are the Phase 2 gunner and commander stations already engineered, fully supplier-assigned and locked to existing hardware? If yes, this may not be a current vendor opening.

Who specifically to contact

Johnny Powers — Director, Business Development, MAK Technologies. MAK publicly lists him on its published business-development team. Ask him to route a short Laser Shot capability note to the ACV-CGT Phase 2 training-system integration lead. His assignment to ACV-CGT specifically has not been confirmed; use him as an entry route, not an assumed decision maker.
Coleman Nee — Engineering Solutions Architect, MAK Technologies. MAK’s official team profile lists his function. Request a technical compatibility discussion or correct architectural contact; his direct ACV-CGT assignment is unconfirmed.
MAK Technologies official business inquiry: MAK’s contact page and company AUSA event page. Use these official channels rather than guessed direct email formats or unverified personal phone numbers.

A practical strategy for gaining a foothold

Open with a focused fit question. Ask whether Phase 2/ACV-30 creates a genuine gap in weapon/sight fidelity, gunner controls, instrumentation or crew-gunnery after-action review; do not begin with a generic ‘we make simulators’ pitch.
Send a one-page interface note. Identify a real Laser Shot WST/Table II component and show control/weapon/optic features, fidelity, integration dependencies, data outputs and demonstrable prior applications. Mark unsupplied technical data as questions, not invented specifications.
Offer a low-friction engineering screen. Propose a short architecture-compatibility discussion with the correct MAK gunnery system or integration owner. If there is a genuine gap, offer a limited technical demonstration or joint requirements review under the appropriate information-sharing process.
Use AUSA opportunistically, not exclusively. MAK has announced participation at AUSA 2026. If Laser Shot visits, ask the booth team who owns ACV-CGT gunnery integration; the same request can be made through business development after the show.
Qualify the supplier opening early. Determine existing suppliers, internal-versus-bought work packages, prototype-to-production transitions and any permitted supplier onboarding route. This preserves Laser Shot’s capture time if the interfaces are already committed.

Suggested first approach

Business-development and technical-routing note

Subject: ACV-CGT Phase 2 — simulated weapons and optics interface question

Hello Mr. Powers — I saw MAK’s announcement of the Marine Corps ACV Crew Gunnery Trainer Phase 2, including the ACV-30 expansion. Laser Shot supplies crew-gunnery training systems and simulated weapon/optic capabilities. We’re not assuming an open requirement, but we’d like to understand whether Phase 2 leaves any need for compatible gunnery controls, optics or scoring interfaces. Could you identify the appropriate ACV-CGT integration lead for a focused technical discussion? We can provide a concise capability and interface summary.

What should Laser Shot ask the integration team?

Which gunner/vehicle commander stations, weapon controls, sight lines and data interfaces are already fixed in the design?
What changes, if any, are introduced for ACV-30 training fidelity, and where could external subsystems be considered?
Does the trainer use proprietary interfaces or standards that would make a Laser Shot component impractical?
Are third-party simulated optics, weapon handling or scoring modules already represented by suppliers?
Is there a legitimate demonstration, test or engineering qualification pathway for a narrowly scoped component?

Risk and confidence

High confidence: company-published Phase 2 activity and Laser Shot’s simulation product portfolio. Moderate confidence: reasonable category-level technical adjacency. Unknown: whether a subsystem is unassigned, who owns its selection, interface details, third-party supplier eligibility, procurement timing and attainable revenue. An existing prime award is not equivalent to a component purchasing opportunity.

Source ledger

Independent Caltrio research prepared for Laser Shot, Inc. | Research date: October 9, 2026. Public facts and unconfirmed integration hypotheses are differentiated; validate stakeholder roles and program needs before outreach.