Posted: 7/15/2007 9:54:08 AM EDT
|
From FNH: FN Herstal announced today through FNH USA that the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM) program has received approval from the United States Government (USG) to enter into the Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) phase. Scheduled to commence in July and be complete by mid-December, the IOT&E will consist of select US Military operators testing the weapons in simulated “real-world” mission scenarios. Both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected, with the ultimate and desired outcome having the weapons being designated “Operationally Effective” and “Operationally Suitable” for fielding to US Forces. This next step comes close on the heels of the SCAR and EGLM successfully passing their Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) acceptance testing conducted February through June of 2007. Going forward, as all timelines fall into place and the weapons test successfully, the SCAR and EGLM can be fielded, on a limited basis, to select US Military Forces by late fall of 2007. Plans to fully field the weapons are now developed and in place, with over $25M (procurement) budgeted in the FY2008 Presidential Budget and over $6M slated for FY2009.  |
I hope it shoots better than it looks.
Shooting better than it looks is its primary function. Remember, the M1 Garand was originally designed with a detachable magazine a la the M-14, but military brass felt that the magazine "disrupted the smooth lines of the rifle" and insisted an internal magazine be used. So, designing military weapons based on looks isn't really that great an idea. Not that I don't love my Garand and all, but a 20 round capacity version sure would have been helpful in WW2. |
|
I agree it is ugly, but the latest versions do look better than the prototypes. What I don't understand is why the stock is so low and they expect to use AR-15 height BUIS...? Why does the gas block have a front sight instead of extending the rail forward a bit and using a flip BUIS on the rail-thus an off the self item? If you are having a perm attached front BUIS, why no perm attached rear BUIS? It looks very heavy to me, and excessively bulky. I can't believe they couldn't have made a more streamlined rifle will all the features necessary and still been as durable/reliable - thus making it weight less. |
 I've NEVER heard this. It was originally designed for a 276 caliber in 10 round enbloc clips The military didn't like that since they had a shitload of 3006 left over from WWI. There were test versions of the Garand that used M14 style mags in the mid to late 40's, but that was long after it was in service. Edit for typo of the date. |
Yeah, I know you don't design military arms to be pretty. Thanks, Captain Obvious.  |
From Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand_rifle "Officials in Army Ordnance circles demanded a fixed, non-protruding magazine for the new service rifle. At the time, it was believed that a detachable magazine on a general-issue service rifle would be easily lost by U.S. soldiers (a criticism made of British soldiers and the Lee-Enfield 50 years previously), would render the weapon too susceptible to clogging from dirt and debris (a belief that proved unfounded with the adoption of the M1 Carbine), and that a protruding magazine would complicate existing manual-of-arms drills. As a result, inventor John Pedersen developed an "en bloc" clip system that allowed ammunition to be inserted from above, clip included, into the fixed magazine. While this design provided the requisite flush-mount magazine, the clip system increased the rifle's weight, and prevented it from being fired while reloading." |
