Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 20 of 70 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Acording to this article: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/ ... liability/

The highly touted SCAR is not surprisingly (in my view at least) living up to it's reputation, and the Special Ops community is going back to the M4. I'm really not surprised about this at all. I've said it for a long time now, the M16 series, with 40 years of development and more than a couple wars under it's belt, is a very hard act to follow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I have a huge amount of respect for FN, I really do. But for people to think that any new rifle is going to outperform the M16 series, just shows how little most gun nuts really know about infantry weapons. I keep coming back to that 40 years of development that includes 3 long term wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq) that have greatly contributed to our knowledge base of how to make these things work.

Of all the weapons out there today, the SCAR certainly seems the most promising to me a least. I think it would be a mistake to completely abandon the SCAR, because at some point, our military will need to either re-up our commitment on the M16 series, or begin field development of a replacement. Honestly, with the M16 and the M110 we’re not too far off of what the SCAR brings to the table. The M110 clearly needs more development because it has reported reliability issues, but I really think that’s to be expected with any new weapon system.

There is a real advantage to having DMR or sniper weapons that look very similar to everyone else’s rifle; makes it much harder for the enemy to pick out (and pick off) our field marksmen.

Warts and all, I think we have a very good weapon in the M16 series rifles. With interchangeable top halfs, it becomes even more versatile. Having the option of an M4 for urban duty, and the M16 (20”) for out in the field is very nice. It wouldn’t break my heart to see something like the 6.8 added, but that does make for some serious supply line challenges.

Over the years, if we’ve learned anything, we’ve learned that it’s unreasonable to ask a single rifle to do everything. Barrel lengths and cartridges typically need to be changed as the combat environment changes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
I'm confused by the title of the post. I read the link in the original post- albeit quickly- but was the SCAR even mentioned?

It seemed like a pretty good first-hand report. I also looked at the video of the SCAR and listened to the comments which struck me as faint praise...

Could this be yet another example of trying to fix something that ain't broke... :?:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The article referenced has this to say about the SCAR:

(Interestingly, two Web sites that closely follow military equipment decisions, http://www.military.com and http://www.defensereview.com, reported late last month that the special operations community had dropped its program to replace M-4s with a rifle colloquially known as the SCAR, in part because the SCAR was not living up to its early billing - a common trait among rifles in development - and because it was not regarded as offering an upgrade on the M-4 that was worth the investment.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
This is not surprising. In fact, if I could have found a bookie for it, I'd have bet just this back when.

The reason? Interchangeability. If you want to make a dual-caliber rifle (5.56 & 7.62 NATO) you have two choices; heavy or light. A heavy 5.56 is a non-starter. No matter how reliable, no-one will give the green light to something heavier than an M4. Not if they expect a warm reception at the next promotion review board.

So, you make as light as possible 7.62, with reliability and sturdiness built in, and thus produce a standard-weight 5.56 and a light 7.62.

At this point, would anyone be surprised that the end-users in the Mountain Resort prefer a light 7.62 to a regular-weight 5.56? Anyone?

Add in the always-existing yearning for a return to more "manly" cartridges, and the SCAR-H is the clear choice for those who have a choice.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
ArmyCPT said:
Someone better tell FN...they're sounding like an ex-girlfriend that got a text message break-up...

http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/press/detail.asp?id=92
Tell FN? Hell, somebody better tell NSWC-Crane. Two weeks ago, they released a solicitation for lightweight magazines for both the SCAR-L (20 and 30rd) and SCAR-H (10 and 25rd). Admittedly, they did say that the SCAR-L magazines should also work in the M4A1 and 5.56mm conversions of the SCAR-H.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
Kevin Gibson said:
I have a huge amount of respect for FN, I really do. But for people to think that any new rifle is going to outperform the M16 series, just shows how little most gun nuts really know about infantry weapons. I keep coming back to that 40 years of development that includes 3 long term wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq) that have greatly contributed to our knowledge base of how to make these things work.

Of all the weapons out there today, the SCAR certainly seems the most promising to me a least. I think it would be a mistake to completely abandon the SCAR, because at some point, our military will need to either re-up our commitment on the M16 series, or begin field development of a replacement. Honestly, with the M16 and the M110 we're not too far off of what the SCAR brings to the table. The M110 clearly needs more development because it has reported reliability issues, but I really think that's to be expected with any new weapon system.

There is a real advantage to having DMR or sniper weapons that look very similar to everyone else's rifle; makes it much harder for the enemy to pick out (and pick off) our field marksmen.

Warts and all, I think we have a very good weapon in the M16 series rifles. With interchangeable top halfs, it becomes even more versatile. Having the option of an M4 for urban duty, and the M16 (20") for out in the field is very nice. It wouldn't break my heart to see something like the 6.8 added, but that does make for some serious supply line challenges.

Over the years, if we've learned anything, we've learned that it's unreasonable to ask a single rifle to do everything. Barrel lengths and cartridges typically need to be changed as the combat environment changes.
Kevin, I don't believe it's the platform that's the problem. Forty years or so of developement and they still haven't addressed the main problem, an insufficient cartridge. You know as well as I that all the 'Hit-probability Enhancers' in the world don't mean anything if the round doesn't do the job once it gets there. That, my friend, is the main failing of the platform.What does it say about our weapon's development when our troops can score hits on a distant bad-guy if they have to do it multiple times to effect a stop?

I have nothing against the M16 platform, well, I don't like the gas system but it is a proven platform. Further, at close-in ranges the cartridge is adequate, but there lies the problem. They're expecting things of the cartridge outside of its' ballistic-envelope. Actually, I liken their 'Cartridge-Development' to reverse-evolution. First they shrink the barrel to what?10.4"? Then they turn around and make the velocity suffer even more by going to a bullet that's heavier! Increasing weight by around 15 grains and slowing it down by over 600fps from original velocity does not make for a more effective bullet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
Daniel Watters said:
Tell FN? Hell, somebody better tell NSWC-Crane. Two weeks ago, they released a solicitation for lightweight magazines for both the SCAR-L (20 and 30rd) and SCAR-H (10 and 25rd). Admittedly, they did say that the SCAR-L magazines should also work in the M4A1 and 5.56mm conversions of the SCAR-H.
I suspect that may simply be a formality. As far as I know, it's a done deal with TangoDown. Their ARC magazine, designed for SCAR-L will not only function in the M4 and any "frankengun" AR-15 clone out there, it is the first magazine that functions reliably in the M249 SAW. Apparently, no on ever took the time before to tune the "rate" of the magazine spring to the cyclic rate of the M249.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Retmsgt. said:
Kevin, I don't believe it's the platform that's the problem. Forty years or so of developement and they still haven't addressed the main problem, an insufficient cartridge. You know as well as I that all the 'Hit-probability Enhancers' in the world don't mean anything if the round doesn't do the job once it gets there. That, my friend, is the main failing of the platform.What does it say about our weapon's development when our troops can score hits on a distant bad-guy if they have to do it multiple times to effect a stop?

I have nothing against the M16 platform, well, I don't like the gas system but it is a proven platform. Further, at close-in ranges the cartridge is adequate, but there lies the problem. They're expecting things of the cartridge outside of its' ballistic-envelope. Actually, I liken their 'Cartridge-Development' to reverse-evolution. First they shrink the barrel to what?10.4"? Then they turn around and make the velocity suffer even more by going to a bullet that's heavier! Increasing weight by around 15 grains and slowing it down by over 600fps from original velocity does not make for a more effective bullet.
Of all the available cartridges, I think the 5.56 is the best of the "general purpose" cartridges. The problem we have is when we expect a general purpose rifle and cartridge to do everything. The 5.56's lethality drops fast past 225 yards, but inside that, it's pretty darned good. For CQB, sometimes it's the perfect tool and sometimes it's perfect because of its limited penetration, and sometimes that limited penetration is a liability.

The concept of a rifle that can swap cartridges and barrel length is very valid, and the SCAR looks very promising; just needs further development. For general issue, if we go to a more powerful cartridge, we run into a physics wall; Increase recoil and scores on the rifle range go down. Warts and all, I think the 5.56 is the right cartridge for general use, but we don't live in a general world. There are times where the 5.56 is the right tool, and there are times to pull out the .308 to close the deal. The smart play is to make sure that both are available when needed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
I am firmly convinced that there is no such thing as a single "BEST" anything.

I have absolutely no combat experience with the 5.56 but have talked to several who have who said you can ruin haji's day if you shoot him in the right place...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
spwenger said:
Daniel Watters said:
Tell FN? Hell, somebody better tell NSWC-Crane. Two weeks ago, they released a solicitation for lightweight magazines for both the SCAR-L (20 and 30rd) and SCAR-H (10 and 25rd). Admittedly, they did say that the SCAR-L magazines should also work in the M4A1 and 5.56mm conversions of the SCAR-H.
I suspect that may simply be a formality. As far as I know, it's a done deal with TangoDown.
Actually, the ARC may not qualify depending upon how much weight NSWC-Crane puts on meeting the following design objective. The ARC cannot be disassembled, and is meant to be hosed out in order to clean it.

3.1.1 Physical Characteristics. All SCAR Light LDRMags should have a unitized magazine body (O). The follower should be of anti-tilt design (O), and the spring and follower should be removable for cleaning / inspection (O). The L30 magazines should weigh at least 0.20 lbs less than the MK 16 OEM 30 round magazine (O), but shall weigh no more than said magazine (T-Go/No-Go). The L20 magazine shall weigh no more than the MK 16 OEM 20 round magazine (T). The MK 16 OEM 20 round magazine weighs 0.380 lbs and MK 16 OEM 30 round magazine weighs 0.492 lbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
spwenger said:
Their ARC magazine...is the first magazine that functions reliably in the M249 SAW. Apparently, no on ever took the time before to tune the "rate" of the magazine spring to the cyclic rate of the M249.
Actually, the 1st generation PMAG was the first, but whatever. Not knocking the TD mag - I've heard mucho good things about them from the guys running them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
Charlie Petty said:
I am firmly convinced that there is no such thing as a single "BEST" anything.

I have absolutely no combat experience with the 5.56 but have talked to several who have who said you can ruin haji's day if you shoot him in the right place...
5.56mm works...and your logic applies in virtually every other caliber as well. Well, save .50BMG, of course :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Other than being harder to load (not much of an issue in a double feed mag), does anyone know of a down side to stiff magazine springs? I've seen where stiffer mag springs has solved a bunch of problems in a bunch of guns (Famous Luger fix), but I've yet to encounter a situation where it's a liability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
Mostly theoretical;

Harder to strip top round, especially when fully loaded.
Greater stress on feed lips, with potential to deform early and lose geometry.
Harder to insert and lock fully-loaded magazine.

If spring rate is not the source of a feeding problem, then increasing spring rate won't help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Patrick Sweeney said:
Mostly theoretical;

Harder to strip top round, especially when fully loaded. Depending on the gun, this is either a non issue, or a complete show stopper; good point.
Greater stress on feed lips, with potential to deform early and lose geometry. Another good point, especially in older magazines...all that stress takes a toll in the long run.
Harder to insert and lock fully-loaded magazine. Once again, depending on the gun, this can be a real issue if you're inserting a magazine into a gun where the bolt/slide is still closed.
If spring rate is not the source of a feeding problem, then increasing spring rate won't help. I think that one's kind of a given...you can't fix an unrelated problem by changing the spring weight...but you can exacerbate that problem if you really try. [/quote]

Good points Pat. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
"Everything old is new again."

Remember the good old days, when every feeding problem in the 1911 could be solved with a heavier recoil spring? We had recommendations as high as 22lbs.

Everything on a firearm has to be "mama bear" balanced, or it won't work as well as its inventors thought.

Sweeney's Rule #17: "You get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get."
 
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
Top