|
Quoted: Aaaaaaaow.... Right off the bat, I see they addressed some weaknesses: Aluminum lower that doesn't shatter/crack, beefed up folding stock hinge point that will not break. I wonder if they addressed the elephant in the room: a reduced mass bolt that will function as well as it's predecessor, but without destroying optics/lasers or needing to harden them? What is really crazy is most of the things people complain about - the polymer lower, the thin barrel profile, and the plastic stock hinge are completely a result of NSW asking them to make the gun lighter! The original gun that was presented for the tender had an aluminum lower and was substantially more overbuilt. It was also heavier to the tune of at least half a pound! That being said I love mine. 
|
|
Quoted: I'll say this. I have successfully engaged an IPSC silhouette at 1k meters with a 1-10x in rifle that weight less than 10lbs with the optic. Think URGI weight with twice the range and better lethality at every distance. Unofficially, do you think they'll ever put it in the civilian market? |
|
Quoted: Sigh. I know better. But whatever... For the class what is cobbled together? What can you tell the class about how that system works or the specs? The reality? Everything on that rifle is purpose built for the IWTSD requirement. There is literally nothing that can hit the performance reqs at the weight that that thing does. And that is borne out in the cost, but it fucks. That is probably the most advance individual combat rifle on the planet at the moment. It makes no compromises, in weight (7.5lbs), ballistics, size, features, recoil, etc. And I promise you the cost would show it. We heard you like upper receivers. So we made an upper receiver that attaches to another upper receiver and uses 1940’s communist technology to secure them together. Riveting an aluminum receiver to a steel receiver is ghetto as shit. If they’re seeing that much pressure it’s just going to be the same barrel burning bullshit as the Sig, except in this case the barrel is even harder to replace than the M7. These crazy pressure/high wear cartridges are doing one thing well. Creating disposable rifles in attempt to milk the government for every last tax dollar they can get. |
|
Quoted: Aaaaaaaow.... Right off the bat, I see they addressed some weaknesses: Aluminum lower that doesn't shatter/crack, beefed up folding stock hinge point that will not break. I wonder if they addressed the elephant in the room: a reduced mass bolt that will function as well as it's predecessor, but without destroying optics/lasers or needing to harden them? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nah. No rumblings in the industry/LE sector, but: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/29005/2eg4z65eqmab1_jpg-3639593.JPG https://soldiersystems.net/2022/05/10/mdm-22-fn-america-mrgg/ https://soldiersystems.net/2022/06/10/fn-america-mid-range-gas-gun/ Wouldnt it be so cool if the commercial team there took a product designed by a team including one of Arf's own and tweaked it for the commercial market, adding features and controlling costs and what not? Aaaaaaaow.... Right off the bat, I see they addressed some weaknesses: Aluminum lower that doesn't shatter/crack, beefed up folding stock hinge point that will not break. I wonder if they addressed the elephant in the room: a reduced mass bolt that will function as well as it's predecessor, but without destroying optics/lasers or needing to harden them?  It even has a suppressor that fits on the factory flashhider and you don't need a KNS Discarder to make it run. |
|
Quoted: We heard you like upper receivers. So we made an upper receiver that attaches to another upper receiver and uses 1940’s communist technology to secure them together. Riveting an aluminum receiver to a steel receiver is ghetto as shit. If they’re seeing that much pressure it’s just going to be the same barrel burning bullshit as the Sig, except in this case the barrel is even harder to replace than the M7. These crazy pressure/high wear cartridges are doing one thing well. Creating disposable rifles in attempt to milk the government for every last tax dollar they can get. Getting interesting. |
|
Quoted: We heard you like upper receivers. So we made an upper receiver that attaches to another upper receiver and uses 1940’s communist technology to secure them together. Riveting an aluminum receiver to a steel receiver is ghetto as shit. If they’re seeing that much pressure it’s just going to be the same barrel burning bullshit as the Sig, except in this case the barrel is even harder to replace than the M7. These crazy pressure/high wear cartridges are doing one thing well. Creating disposable rifles in attempt to milk the government for every last tax dollar they can get. Tell me about how the upper and lower fit together? How does that work? How many uppers do you typically deploy with and in what configs as a SOF operator? Is it important for you to retain zero on your optic when switching between your CQB upper and your standard 14.5 config? Can you show me in the design where there are ANY rivets? What level is barrel replacement typically, is it -10 or is it -23&P level? Are operators typically rebarreling uppers or is that done by a 91F or depot/Crane? What is the base operating pressure and velocity for 6.5x43? What is the MV at this pressure in a 14.5" tube? What about the rifle is disposable? Please elaborate for us. I would really like to learn. |
|
Quoted: It's complicated. The short version is Dan, Kristina, Jim, Mark, etc. are still colleagues and friends. For the record the only issue I have every seen with lowers is from the early EX16/17 guns and the original poly. It was changed early in dev cause MARSOC broke some. But it is almost unheard of for them to break in normal use. It can happen, but you are bending the receiver or breaking other shit. Remember the lower is supported by the receiver and the back plate and the barrel ext. And plastic deforms elastically better than metal, ie it returns to its original shape. I am not saying you wont ever possibly see an Edge SR25 lower in Al, just that it isnt going to help you for durability or strength. Simply put, I can proto in poly but SLA/ABS in print doesnt preform as close to injection mold as AL does to DMLS. So it is easier to have fast rev changes in metal if you have CNC and DMLS if you are operating within certain space/weight constraints than it is to try to use FDM of some sort. Tracking. Makes perfect sense. I do also recall reading somewhere that molds were very ,very expensive. |
|
Quoted: I'm sure some units and PDs in the US still use them. Otherwise a lot of foreign countries use them. Ukrainians seem to like the ones they got. https://preview.redd.it/a-ukrainian-and-his-scar-v0-l3gir11hcava1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8864359f53ad1992cbf9dac7588dfeaaab680379 A number of countries use them, France for DMRs, Portugal, Chile, and more. The precision rifle versions seem to be popular. The Ukrainians seem to really like them, as they do the Czech SCAR (Bren Series). Ukraine being the litmus test for modern conventional warfare on the modern battlefield and all. Val Gear has the best, objective AARs of gear and equipment used downrange in that AO:  FN SCAR L: GOLDEN STANDARD  FN SCAR Heavy- pretty good DMR |
|
Quoted: Tracking. Makes perfect sense. I do also recall reading somewhere that molds were very ,very expensive. Approx 100k per, though realistically that can go down or way up depending on the vendor, material/mold life, flow analysis needed for the shape and material, etc. There are two molds used to make a SCAR lower, one for each half. So if you aren't going to sell thousands, you arent going to make any money. |
|
Quoted: Tell me about how the upper and lower fit together? How does that work? How many uppers do you typically deploy with and in what configs as a SOF operator? Is it important for you to retain zero on your optic when switching between your CQB upper and your standard 14.5 config? Can you show me in the design where there are ANY rivets? What level is barrel replacement typically, is it -10 or is it -23&P level? Are operators typically rebarreling uppers or is that done by a 91F or depot/Crane? What is the base operating pressure and velocity for 6.5x43? What is the MV at this pressure in a 14.5" tube? What about the rifle is disposable? Please elaborate for us. I would really like to learn. They say outright it has a self contained operating group. Even if it’s screwed together, it’s still not optimal to have the optic rail bolted to the receiver instead of being integral. Did you work on this rifle, or have anything to do with its design, because I’m curious why this would be considered. One doesn’t have to be an operator to know when something isn’t a good idea. The fact you’re leaning on “you’re not an operator so you can’t have an opinion” is just pretentious. If you want to play that card, please provide data regarding your deployments with this rifle for a real counterpoint. Steel and aluminum contract at different rates from stress and heat. Do you not see how this could be a problem when your aluminum optic rail uses tiny little screws to fasten to steel while bridging the hottest part of the rifle? Pressure is only a little higher than 5.56. Which makes using the two piece steel and aluminum upper even more odd. Why does it need a steel mid receiver? |
|
Quoted: Reciprocating CH was a requirement in 2005. Cause NSW thought it was a great idea. Just like the 45degree MP5 style selector throw. As it would turn out? It wasn't. But that doesn't help anyone when its determined after the configuration is solidified. ECP's not withstanding. They went back to AR's for 5.56, not because SCAR doesnt beat M4 in every objective metric related to durability and performance. They continued to use M4 because it is on most of the units' TOE/MTOE, and is thus effectively free for the base rifle, as it comes from big Army money. Essentially the choice was "you can have a 2k rifle" or "you can have a free rifle and 2k in accessories via SOPMOD and 'SOF money'". Which would most people chose for a 20-40% improvement on objective metrics? It came down to the "color of money", which is why Mk17 and Mk20 were still fully fielded. Cause there was nothing as good 2009-2011 that they could enhance, either with SOF money, via the jobs program known as NSWC Crane, or O&M funds. More durable? One of our members here is a Belgian paracommando officer. They transitioned to the SCAR, although he clung to his FNC as long as he could. He posted some interesting photos from his unit armorer showing the various broken SCARs they had, a significant percentage of his unit's rifles. Stocks broken in various places and in various ways and broken receivers to, including lower receivers broken into multiple pieces. He said the type of training they do is hard on such guns, which is why the schools still use the para FAL and FNC instead of the standard issue SCAR, as they are far more durable. |
|
Quoted: https://soldiersystems.net/2022/05/10/mdm-22-fn-america-mrgg/ https://soldiersystems.net/2022/06/10/fn-america-mid-range-gas-gun/ Wouldnt it be so cool if the commercial team there took a product designed by a team including one of Arf's own and tweaked it for the commercial market, adding features and controlling costs and what not? Quoted: Quoted: Nah. No rumblings in the industry/LE sector, but: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/29005/2eg4z65eqmab1_jpg-3639593.JPG https://soldiersystems.net/2022/05/10/mdm-22-fn-america-mrgg/ https://soldiersystems.net/2022/06/10/fn-america-mid-range-gas-gun/ Wouldnt it be so cool if the commercial team there took a product designed by a team including one of Arf's own and tweaked it for the commercial market, adding features and controlling costs and what not? Looks good albeit still chonky. Don’t understand the need to fold the fucking stock though. A completely useless “feature” on a full length rifle, IMO. |
|
Quoted: They've done this before and shit-canned manufacturer support too, if I recollect... Quoted: Quoted: Fuuuuk, Guess I better buy spares... Fuck FN... never again. They've done this before and shit-canned manufacturer support too, if I recollect... Yeah, FN has a habit of doing that, but also SCARs are wack as fuck anyways, so big meh. |
|
Quoted: They could be? For those unaware, FN is still moving forward with this embarrassing cobbled together piece of hammered dog shit as their next generation rifle. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/61399/IMG_4834_png-3639651.JPG FN goes ass to mouth. With other dudes. How much seat time do you have on one? I'm willing to bet it's way better than a SCAR, tbh. |
|
Quoted: I missed this on my first post, but what you're discussing is actually called the Sig Spear... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/105138/1000020679-3639677.jpg It even has a suppressor that fits on the factory flashhider and you don't need a KNS Discarder to make it run. No, he was asking about a potential good gun made by a company who gives a fuck about its end users. I'll give FN shit about the SCAR forever, because I've had a ton of gun time on SCARs, but this new thing, based on what's publicly available is so much better. |
|
Quoted: Tell me about how the upper and lower fit together? How does that work? How many uppers do you typically deploy with and in what configs as a SOF operator? Is it important for you to retain zero on your optic when switching between your CQB upper and your standard 14.5 config? Can you show me in the design where there are ANY rivets? What level is barrel replacement typically, is it -10 or is it -23&P level? Are operators typically rebarreling uppers or is that done by a 91F or depot/Crane? What is the base operating pressure and velocity for 6.5x43? What is the MV at this pressure in a 14.5" tube? What about the rifle is disposable? Please elaborate for us. I would really like to learn. He has no idea what you're talking about. |
|
Quoted: Looks good albeit still chonky. Don’t understand the need to fold the fucking stock though. A completely useless “feature” on a full length rifle, IMO. Storing the gun in racks. Deploying with it from Strykers, helos, or whatever. Jumping with it. Having a gun you can drop like 8+" off of whenever you want is convenient, and is my singular complaint with the AR-15. |
|
Quoted: Tracking. Makes perfect sense. I do also recall reading somewhere that molds were very ,very expensive. The requisite precision level with poly molds drives their cost up. Beretta's ARX platform is an apex example of a poly gun part mold, where the carrier rides directly on guides that are part of the poly upper; there are no steel rails. I'm still pissed they dropped it. 
|
|
Quoted: It was COTS product because of the way the requirement was written "adjustable cheekpiece". It also had/has a secondary buffer that the team was playing with at the time, among others. M4 tube/compatible buttstock was a solicitation req though, and FAB actually had one of the better options that would pass drop, clear the CH, etc. Also when you say "outsource", that's kind of a weird question to me. Do you think that the Ugg boot is made inside of FNA or FNH? Quoted: Quoted: Did they outsource the buttstock to FAB? It was COTS product because of the way the requirement was written "adjustable cheekpiece". It also had/has a secondary buffer that the team was playing with at the time, among others. M4 tube/compatible buttstock was a solicitation req though, and FAB actually had one of the better options that would pass drop, clear the CH, etc. Also when you say "outsource", that's kind of a weird question to me. Do you think that the Ugg boot is made inside of FNA or FNH? |
|
Quoted: They could be? For those unaware, FN is still moving forward with this embarrassing cobbled together piece of hammered dog shit as their next generation rifle. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/61399/IMG_4834_png-3639651.JPG FN goes ass to mouth. With other dudes. Not gonna lie - I’d take that rifle 100/100 times over the fucking abortion that is the Sig M7. |
|
Quoted: I'm intrigued by the 6.5mm LICC. Quoted: Quoted: They could be? For those unaware, FN is still moving forward with this embarrassing cobbled together piece of hammered dog shit as their next generation rifle. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/61399/IMG_4834_png-3639651.JPG I'm intrigued by the 6.5mm LICC. LICC deez nuts? |
|
Quoted: Storing the gun in racks. Deploying with it from Strykers, helos, or whatever. Jumping with it. Having a gun you can drop like 8+" off of whenever you want is convenient, and is my singular complaint with the AR-15. Never heard of or seen anyone actually utilize the folding feature except for in phovid-ops and gut tells me it’s more or a less a filler feature to use as a selling point. BUT, I’m not in the business to know much about it so I’ll just admit it’s my (limited) perspective. |
|
Quoted: Yes, people likely bought into the "THEYRE CANCELING EVERYTHING" panic and bought all they could find. I thought RCH Scars had been gone for a while, seems now they are and FN didn't lose any money on the old stock. Brilliant marketing on their part. |
|
Quoted: Everything is overgassed that runs well when it is full of mud, is never cleaned, hasn't had parts replaced since OEF III. But that has nothing to do with the point I was making. One of these things becomes a 673 dollar hand grenade. The other will clear the obstruction and still function. I had a M4 serial number W003xx made in 2003, the barrel was replaced with a M4A1 barrel in 2015 when I came back from my last deployment. That 2003 original barrel had seen every deployment since the GWOT started. And it still was plenty accurate for the 300m range. M4 like any other rifle is good as long as old parts are replaced. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Perusing the FN America website. I want this so much. https://fnamerica.com/products/rifles/fn-m249s-para/ I want this thing: https://fnamerica.com/products/military/fn-mtl-30/ FN has a mil discount right? |
|
Quoted: Not gonna lie - I’d take that rifle 100/100 times over the fucking abortion that is the Sig M7. Quoted: Quoted: They could be? For those unaware, FN is still moving forward with this embarrassing cobbled together piece of hammered dog shit as their next generation rifle. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/61399/IMG_4834_png-3639651.JPG FN goes ass to mouth. With other dudes. Not gonna lie - I’d take that rifle 100/100 times over the fucking abortion that is the Sig M7. Why? |
|
Quoted: I missed this on my first post, but what you're discussing is actually called the Sig Spear... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/105138/1000020679-3639677.jpg It even has a suppressor that fits on the factory flashhider and you don't need a KNS Discarder to make it run. Negative. We're speaking of the new FN MRGG (purported legacy SCAR replacement). Not that abysmal failure pictured above that SCAR-H. |
|
Quoted: Yeah, FN has a habit of doing that, but also SCARs are wack as fuck anyways, so big meh. Quoted: No, he was asking about a potential good gun made by a company who gives a fuck about its end users. I'll give FN shit about the SCAR forever, because I've had a ton of gun time on SCARs, but this new thing, based on what's publicly available is so much better. @Number0neGun Ranger Regiment? Interested in hearing your experiences. |
|
Quoted: Negative. We're speaking of the new FN MRGG (purported legacy SCAR replacement). Not that abysmal failure pictured above that SCAR-H. According to this LMT won the contract: https://www.twz.com/land/new-rifles-chambered-in-6-5mm-creedmoor-heading-to-u-s-special-operations-armories Pretty cool. |
|
Quoted: Glorified AK. Wat?  The SCAR is patterned off the AR-18 operation system. ETA: This is a "glorified AK". Or more correctly, the pinnacle of AK evolution: Attached File |
|
Quoted: Wat? The SCAR is patterned off the AR-18 operation system. ETA: This is a "glorified AK". Or more correctly, the pinnacle of AK evolution: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/29005/Sig_Sauer_Switzerland_sg-550-assault-rif-3640336.JPG IDK. The Galil ACE is pretty good. |
|
Quoted: They could be? For those unaware, FN is still moving forward with this embarrassing cobbled together piece of hammered dog shit as their next generation rifle. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/61399/IMG_4834_png-3639651.JPG FN goes ass to mouth. With other dudes. Looks nice to me. Charging handle is more like a FAL in terms of height but seems a bit too far back.  Should be more forward like this:  Caliber is interesting. I assume they will make them in 5.56 and .300 for those that want something more durable than a SCAR but want more common calibers. |
|
Quoted: According to this LMT won the contract: https://www.twz.com/land/new-rifles-chambered-in-6-5mm-creedmoor-heading-to-u-s-special-operations-armories Pretty cool. Ah. Took a cue from the Brits. Excellent, proven platform. Now after SF puts it thru it's paces, THAT should immediately be phased in to replace that XM7 clusterfuck. |
|
Quoted: IDK. The Galil ACE is pretty good. It's a good platform. I've personally owned and sold original IMI Galil ARs, ARMs (one of my all time favorites), IWI Galil ACEs and Sig 550/551s. While basic operation is AK, The Sig 55X series is VERY refined-way ahead of it's time actually, extremely well built (much better than IMI/IWI offerings), the diopter sights are phenomenal and they will shoot circles around Galils in the accuraccy department. |