Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: WTF is an asymetric warfare group?  Is this like that Vern movie where they parachute the snapping turtles in with 'death from above' painted on their shells? Quoted: I noticed the HK 416 comes with (or is available with) a two-stage trigger The Army is buying some for its Asymmetric Warfare Group........Source Not exactly. (but it is a funny thought) Asymmetric Warfare Group - LINK to mission statement and All you want to know and then some Tons of stuff on Asymmetric Warfare So basically you have to be an old goat before they will even look at you.  Sounds like a ticket to medical discharge.

That's one of the most erroneous and disrespectful statements I've ever seen on ARF.com.  I have crusty old CSMs in my unit that would crush any 19-year old private in the force.  Thank whatever god you pray to every day those "old goats" awaiting their "medical discharges" defend pussies like you.  Would you rather have them sent inexperienced 18-year olds to do the job?  Special operations is not a childs game, and BTW you can make E-7 in 6 years.  Fucking moron.  

I used to be a memeber here, and enjoyed contributing to the forums where I shared a common interest with other AR enthusiasts.  It's people like you that caused me to let my membership expire and go somewhere more selective about their membership.

As for the SCAR, it is just poorly designed on the outside.  The operating system is solid, and I like the fact that it's not black, saves me having to paint it and black isn't an effective color for camo.  The ability to have a 90% parallel 7.62 version is great as well.  Familiarity of the two platforms is a strong point.  In short, great concept, poor execution.  The stock is HUGE.  The charging handle on the prototypes I handled in on the right.  It can serve as a forward-assist, but IA drills are slowed because it's on the right and most shooters are right handed.  I don't know if it will be ambi in the final version.  The EGLM trigger is poorly designed but rumors saythat it will change as well.  The consensus is that the 416/417 would have been a better choice, but then the generals wouldn't have had a new plaform all their own to show off and the end-user will suffer for it.  The SASS project could have been rolled in to the 417 also, because folks aren't happy with the SR-25 due to KAC's aparent inability to deliver the product with the same quality as the prototypes, or get them here on time.  That's a whole new thread in itself, though.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: WTF is an asymetric warfare group?  Is this like that Vern movie where they parachute the snapping turtles in with 'death from above' painted on their shells? Quoted: I noticed the HK 416 comes with (or is available with) a two-stage trigger The Army is buying some for its Asymmetric Warfare Group........Source Not exactly. (but it is a funny thought) Asymmetric Warfare Group - LINK to mission statement and All you want to know and then some Tons of stuff on Asymmetric Warfare So basically you have to be an old goat before they will even look at you.  Sounds like a ticket to medical discharge. That's one of the most erroneous and disrespectful statements I've ever seen on ARF.com.  I have crusty old CSMs in my unit that would crush any 19-year old private in the force.  Thank whatever god you pray to every day those "old goats" awaiting their "medical discharges" defend pussies like you.  Would you rather have them sent inexperienced 18-year olds to do the job?  Special operations is not a childs game, and BTW you can make E-7 in 6 years.  Fucking moron.   I used to be a memeber here, and enjoyed contributing to the forums where I shared a common interest with other AR enthusiasts.  It's people like you that caused me to let my membership expire and go somewhere more selective about their membership.

Unfortunately M4, erroneous, disrespectful, and ignorant statements are par for the course around here. As you let your membership expire so have many other 'professionals' because the assclowns run ramped over here, completely unchecked. And like most threads in the tech forum, this one had enormous potential only to be dragged down into the arfcom sewers by a few jerkoffs.

The ergonomics of the SCAR are first-rate; end-user input helped create the rifle. That ugly-ass stock is an ergonomic wonder.

Quoted: The ergonomics of the SCAR are first-rate; end-user input helped create the rifle. That ugly-ass stock is an ergonomic wonder.

Coming from an "end-user", who laid his paws on one again about a week ago, the ergonomics are crap.  It is not as user friendly as the AR.  It's not a bad gun, but with all due respect MOST of the end users think this is a choice along the same lines as the OHWS a.k.a. MK23.  End user input asked for modularity and a parallel 7.62 platform, improved reliability while decreasing madatory maintenance, as well as compatability with current accessories.  The SCAR concept came from end user input.  The specific FN submittal did not. Feel free to PM me with any questions regarding how I came upon this information.  As I said, the SCAR is a good platform, but there are some features that seriously inhibit its usefulness.

Quoted: Coming from an "end-user", who laid his paws on one again about a week ago, the ergonomics are crap.  It is not as user friendly as the AR.  It's not a bad gun, but with all due respect MOST of the end users think this is a choice along the same lines as the OHWS a.k.a. MK23.  End user input asked for modularity and a parallel 7.62 platform, improved reliability while decreasing madatory maintenance, as well as compatability with current accessories.  The SCAR concept came from end user input.  The specific FN submittal did not. Feel free to PM me with any questions regarding how I came upon this information.  As I said, the SCAR is a good platform, but there are some features that seriously inhibit its usefulness.

I have a slightly different question. So far the SCAR, according to FN, is in it's third revision. The revisions are supposed to be based on direct user input. How come nobody's ringing the bell on it's ergonomics?

That's an easy one.  "Direct user" means the Army came up with it instead of FN.  The people in the military making the decisions are not actual shooters in an operational status but a bunch of politicians so removed from the needs of the guys on the ground I'm surprised the thing doesn't come with donuts and cable TV.

Quoted: That's an easy one.  "Direct user" means the Army came up with it instead of FN.  The people in the military making the decisions are not actual shooters in an operational status but a bunch of politicians so removed from the needs of the guys on the ground I'm surprised the thing doesn't come with donuts and cable TV.

Haha. Noted. You never know what exactly to believe when a company mentions military users..

M4Guru,

Have you handled the Colt?  How would you compare it to the 416?

I have not handled the colt, only the LW, 416, and SCAR.  I have fired the LW and 416, both of which I liked, but I have not had the opportunity to fire the SCAR yet, only handle it a few times.  Recoil impulse on the HK is virtually nonexistant on the 416, and the LW is good as well.  I give an edge to LW because of price...half of HK, availability...they actually exist outside certain circles, and it's the same size/profile as a normal AR.  Plus, LW is a good company that listensto and respects the general shooting public.  HK is a bunch of coroporate bastards whose business practices may put them out of business in the US market.  I would take either one of the on my next deployment without hesitation, but I'd spend my own money on a LW even if it cost what the HK did.

A stated, my experience with the SCAR is limited.  I was contacted by a guy from FN, who I know from another board and is a very good guy, and he let me onto some things about the SCAR I didn't know.   I..and the guys that showed me the SCAR (who don't work for FN)...was that the SCAR was gonna have a charging handle like an AK.  Apparently it is designed so that you can switch it.  Good stuff, that was my least favorite part of the design.  Bad info on my part, sorry to have conveyed it to you guys.  I have some concerns with the buttstock, but I am sure if it's not changed I will learn to use it.  Keep in mind I am only one guy, and only speak of the opinions of a very few guys.  There are certainly many things I'd change about the current M4 platform, as well, but that's just what I'm used to.  The SCAR is a good system functionally, and it has a lot of features designed into it that will make it a success.  Any issues will be fixed over time just like any other system, and I like the fact that FN got the nod becuase they are a good company.  

Nevermind.

Stephen

Thanks for your input M4Guru. I have to say that beyond my infatuation with the M4 the FN SCAR seems like a very good design.

One of the things wich does not make sense to me about the Colt rifle is why they did not make a way for an m203 to attach to the gun so as to leave the barrel free floated and not hampered by the m203. I can not remember if this was in any way part of the SCAR requirements but in my opinion it didn't have to be. Anyone could see that a grenade launcher that left the rifle barrel free floated was what the military would want in the futre and the fact that Colt did nothing to attempt this makes me wonder how dedicated to actually designing a new rifle they actually are. As far as I can tell the Hk launcher is free floated although if I am making a mistake about this please tell me.

There are rail-mounted 203s out there, but not too many.  They need to be off the barrel.

Your concern with the free floated grenade launcher was one I had as well, but I have not seen the EGLM on the SCAR in person and cannot say how it is attached.  All the HK's I've seen were stand-alone units, but I'm out of the loop til May so I don't know what's out there.

crsbar--your deliberately choosing to ignore factual information provided by folks, some of whom are involved with the systems being discussed, makes me question your motives and maturity.

kemp--much of the relevant commentary on systems is not in the public domain.

Tag.

My background?

Well, I graduated high school in 1990, entered the U.S. Navy in 1991, attended Naval Nuclear Power School and then served as a Reactor Operator aboard U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln until 1997.

Honorably discharged with two deployments to the Persian Gulf, and now I work at a civilian nuclear power plant and have one more class to complete my bachelor's degree.

I like ice cream cake and shooting.


What's your background?

tag

Quoted: crsbar--your deliberately choosing to ignore factual information provided by folks, some of whom are involved with the systems being discussed, makes me question your motives and maturity. kemp--much of the relevant commentary on systems is not in the public domain.

I ignore nothing. I am well out of public domain on this issue. I have been involved with these systems and people in the industry for quite some time. I have not motives, do you? You seem to want to personally attack me. I asked some questions due to my information not jiveing with what some people on this board are saying. I am not here to convince you or anything else. So to get back on topic:

I have had the opportunity to fire the Colt SCAR candidates extensivly. You may read about it if you like in the September and October issues of Small Arms Review. I have a LE1020 on the way, I expect it within 3 weeks. I will primarily be interested in durability so most of the firing will be on automatic fire. I also plan on doing a comparison to the standard M4A1. You will be able to read the results of my test and evaluation in a future Small Arms Review Article if you wish. I will also be making a trip this spring to FNMI by invitation to put the SCAR through its paces for another article.

crsbar-I'm very interested in Colt's product, I can't wait to see a write-up with a comparison to the M4.

I don't think Dr. Roberts is promoting anyone's product, he was just stating the fact that the HK upper is in limited service with certain SOF units.  he's a very respected member of the military weapons community, and I value his opinion and think we are lucky to have him involved in these conversations.  Feel free to PM me regarding small arms currently in use by Army SOF, within certain restraints I'll answer what i can in my limited knowledge.

best of luck with your article,
Jon

Instead of being a macho man contest questioning everyones integrity and motives lets back off and say that arguing about it on the internet is completely useless.  There is as much disinfo as info here.

Dr. Roberts is privvy to the same info I have (and more).  No matter how mundane it seems, he will not spell it out here, no matter how frustrating it is to see people propogating rumor as fact.  He has close relationships to the people and units that have been using the 416 in theater.  He understands the procurement process, and consults with those involved regularily.  Give him that.

All that is required to say here is no, the 416 did not undergo the same trials as the FN SCAR.  That does not mean it did not enter the system from a different maybe less than optimal direction that some would consider unfair.  It has been vetted though in ways the scar has not on a scale much larger than the FN rifle.

The SCAR is a fine weapon by all accounts, and nobody is disputing that.  The 416 is also a fine weapon.  Any major changes in official small arms will be run through the TACOM/ARDEC process along with a bunch of other stuff.  So everyone can take a breather and realize like I did some time ago that this is very complicated, does not always seem fair, and sometimes the best prototype does not win.  Read one solicitation doccument and realize that evaluations of small run prototypes are only the tip of the iceburg.  Politics are involved,  Business and production capabilities are factors.  US manufacture is a factor.  Requirements are daunting admin requirements for those who reach an advanced stage.

So who cares.  It is a huge complicated mess.  You can talk about it all you want from your perspective of commercial back channels, but unless you have a crystal ball.............

Any info gleened on the subject has already been posted, and none more will.  The rest is all rumor.

As for journalistic accuracy involving issues like this, I would like to point out a recent cover of one of the RAG's which says "The USMC's IAR: the SAW replacement....the Ultimax."

There is stretch considering the damn solicitation was just officially released.

If I were a SAR journalist, I would stick to the weapons, the tech data, accurrately doccument what solicitations and what achievements the respective weapon has passed through and leave the selection to the huge bureaucratic infastructure that is in place.  Throw in your opinions. Otherwise in the end the journalist looses credibility passing on hearsay as news.  This is just my opinion and in no way slights you or SAR.  Of all SAR does a great job.

By the way I have no interest in the success of the 416 either.  Well, lets just say I ain't rootin' for it.  


I like ice cream too!

Quoted: By the way I have no interest in the success of the 416 either.  Well, lets just say I ain't rootin' for it.   I like ice cream too!

At least you have the civilian market...HK won't play there.  You guys have a phenomenal product, I'd like to see it get more widespread use.

Ah, I remembered that someone was going to do a write up on the colt system, thanks for reminding me what publication to look for Crsbar. Crsbar didn't you also say that you got to shoot Colt's 2 direct impingement rifles that they submitted for SCAR? Can you give us a quick preview of what they were like and how they shot?

Here is a question that I don't think anyone has ever asked but since we have a bit of talk about different SCAR rifles here I go, does anyone know what the Sig SCAR was like? I had read that they entered at least one rifle.

It seems as to whether Colt or Hk that in traditional ARFCOM fashion I would rather just have both. Assuming what people say about the Hk is correct and taking into account that the Colt did pass the SCAR testing I think both are very reliable rifles that can withstand a high round count before any maintenance.

I plan to get a piston in the near future but I am waiting till all the companies show their cards before I decide wich I choose to enjoy, however if I had a choice right now it would be Hk. (on an off topic who here loves Hk pistolas :D)

You better find a way to get into the top .001% of military special ops units if you want to choose the HK.  Or spend half the money and get a LW, which is just as good.

Well, guess that settles it, time to join the military. Remember, "In a world of compromise, some don't."

EDIT:  My mistake.

I will give you some info of the Colt SCAR weapons. I can not give too much or my editor will get pissed. Then why would you buy their magazines!!!

Colt submitted three entries. Types A and B were direct gas system weapons. Type A had a Colt desighted 1-piece upper and Type B had a standard M4 upper receiver with a ARMS SIR System. Type C was Colt's piston operated system. This also used the 1-piece upper receiver.

I tested actual weapons used in the trials. These were not museum grade weapons. They showed long abuse and excessive operation. I went in the basement of Colt to their engineering range and fired nearly 1000 rounds out of the three guns. Mostly full auto fire.

The A, B and C all felt the same. I felt no diffrence in cylic rate although I was expecting the piston system to have a slower rate of fire. Colt's design allowed them to control the cyclic rate and they chose the same as the M4. The Type C I fired had not been cleaned since the trials and showed some corrosion and extremen wear. You will see the photo's in the article.

I was really impressed with all three guns. I liked the Types B and C personally. I am very fond of the ARMS SIR System and 40L. The Type C was really interesting. There are some interesting features about these guns that you will have to read about. I have many great photos of all the guns. This was a Small Arms Review Exclusive. Nobody outside of Colt and SOCOM has used these rifles or seen them. Colt did a great job on these guns. They kept the fit and feel of the M4 that all the operators were use to and like. The durability and reliability in the tests were excellent. The real reasons the FN was chosen over the Colt Type C is unknown. SOCOM and COlt have not had the best relationship. You may read about that if you wish in the June Small Arms Review. I have an article on the M4 that explains many of the misinformation floating around about the M4. What it is and what it is not. Also factual information backed up by documents of the cause of the early SOCOM problems. That is all  can give you for now on the Colt SCAR. I hope you will enjoy the article when they come out. It is a two part series on the SCAR rifles.

tag

Crsbar,

I have no desire to personally attack you; I do want the truth--your earlier posts on SOF HK416 use and reliability are simply not accurate.  As a commentator on this field, I should hope you would want your writing to be accurate...

Quoted: Well, guess that settles it, time to join the military. Remember, "In a world of compromise, some don't."

Good luck.  The chances of making it into such units is actually slightly higher than the chance of Hk releasing the uppers for civilian consumption.

Good posts.....lots of good info here...........so, the 64,000 dollar question is, which should a civvie buy? Colt LE1020  or FN SCAR?  

Quoted: Crsbar, I have no desire to personally attack you; I do want the truth--your earlier posts on SOF HK416 use and reliability are simply not accurate.  As a commentater on this field, I should hope you would want your writing to be accurate...

I do want it accurate. As you know as an authot/authority in this field you can not simply take someones word for it. The worse case scenario is the old " I know but I can't tell you" phantom because it is top secret" You have to do your homework and have facts to back you up. Nobody as an author cares what you think. Only what you can prove. As an author, I take all marketing with a grain of salt. THey are promoting their product. The true measure of a product is by independent testing. Such as the governemnt inspectors at Colt/FNMI and Beretta for expmple who run guns through endurence/reliability tests. Documents are created stateing the test reults. I have nothing bad to say about the HK416. I do believe that they are in limited use by a few select units. Based on my research and contact it is not a weapon of choice throughout SOCOM but few select units.  While working on my book I went to research an unnamed chapter and was led to believe SOCOM had  required something and was testing and use it to only get laughed at when I spoke to the guys at Crane and for them to ask where the hell I hear that load from. The manufactures were right there saying they designed it at request for and so on and so forth. After that I need documented proof beforeI would publish these types of things. I am very critical on these types of things and if I get undisputable proof on certain issues they will appear in my writing but not until the proof is satisfied and I can back up or defend my research. During research, I have been lied to by several company representative. I only found this out becasue I went after coroboration and it did not. I hope this makes sence to you.

...Nevermind.

Quoted: Quoted: Well, guess that settles it, time to join the military. Remember, "In a world of compromise, some don't." Good luck.  The chances of making it into such units is actually slightly higher than the chance of Hk releasing the uppers for civilian consumption.hr

So you are saying that there is a chance...........

To answer your question cyclone since the LE1020 comes out I believe by end of summer and the FN SCAR i believe is not to come out for a year or two I would have to say go with the Colt and when the FN comes out take a look at it and if you like it more move your Colt and buy the FN.

My hard earned dollars will buy everything I can get my hands on in case Billary gets into orfice.

It is not an either or, but everything situation.


CRSBAR.......is that you Chris?

Quoted: My hard earned dollars will buy everything I can get my hands on in case Billary gets into orfice. It is not an either or, but everything situation. CRSBAR.......is that you Chris?

My name is Chris Bartocci, I am author of Black Rifle 2 (Collector Grade Publications) as well as writer for Small Arms Review, Special Weapons for Military and Police amongst other magazines. Do I know you?

Quoted: Here is a question that I don't think anyone has ever asked but since we have a bit of talk about different SCAR rifles here I go, does anyone know what the Sig SCAR was like? I had read that they entered at least one rifle.

The SIG rifle was probably a prototype-version of their now apparently much hated 556 design. The interchangable barrel and taking STANAG mags are pretty clear giveaways. SIG also has their SAPR (semi auto precision rifle) which is basically a 7.62 Sg551 again with quick change barrels and the option to feed AK 7.62 as well. Their entry was probably somewhere in between the two.

Quoted: I will give you some info of the Colt SCAR weapons. I can not give too much or my editor will get pissed. Then why would you buy their magazines!!! Colt submitted three entries. Types A and B were direct gas system weapons. Type A had a Colt desighted 1-piece upper and Type B had a standard M4 upper receiver with a ARMS SIR System. Type C was Colt's piston operated system. This also used the 1-piece upper receiver. I tested actual weapons used in the trials. These were not museum grade weapons. They showed long abuse and excessive operation. I went in the basement of Colt to their engineering range and fired nearly 1000 rounds out of the three guns. Mostly full auto fire. The A, B and C all felt the same. I felt no difference in cyclic rate although I was expecting the piston system to have a slower rate of fire. Colt's design allowed them to control the cyclic rate and they chose the same as the M4. The Type C I fired had not been cleaned since the trials and showed some corrosion and extreme wear. You will see the photo's in the article. I was really impressed with all three guns. I liked the Types B and C personally. I am very fond of the ARMS SIR System and 40L. The Type C was really interesting. There are some interesting features about these guns that you will have to read about. I have many great photos of all the guns. This was a Small Arms Review Exclusive. Nobody outside of Colt and SOCOM has used these rifles or seen them. Colt did a great job on these guns. They kept the fit and feel of the M4 that all the operators were use to and like. The durability and reliability in the tests were excellent. The real reasons the FN was chosen over the Colt Type C is unknown. SOCOM and Colt have not had the best relationship. You may read about that if you wish in the June Small Arms Review. I have an article on the M4 that explains many of the misinformation floating around about the M4. What it is and what it is not. Also factual information backed up by documents of the cause of the early SOCOM problems. That is all  can give you for now on the Colt SCAR. I hope you will enjoy the article when they come out. It is a two part series on the SCAR rifles.

wow.

I got my "letter" from SAR recently (the reminder that my subscription renewal is due).

I haven't responded yet, and I hope it doesn't lapse on me during the publication of this 2-parter!!

Great stuff crsbar. As a staunch Colt supporter and enthusiast, I am intrigued to hear about their work in engineering and related R/D areas.

It means they intend to keep fighting for their share of the world's small arms market.

Chris, Didn't mean to creep you out.  Jesse and I met you at shot show (unless I am thinging of the wrong chris)  Grenadier Precision.  When you gave your background, it rung a bell.

We are sorta nose deep in the piston stuff and 6.8 SPC and recently published solicitations, etc.  

The doc follows closely and does lots of consulting for the military.  

Nice work on BR II.  Worth every penny.

Did not know that the Colt entries ran that well in the SCAR trials.  Good info, look forward to future issues of SAR.

Hase anyone - or everyone - seen the video from SHOT Show that is narrated by the Hk product rep?


Here it is for those interested ----> Hk 416 video snipet




Did he say "Firing Pin Block Safety?"  

Wonder how that works?

Quoted: My hard earned dollars will buy everything I can get my hands on in case Billary gets into orfice. It is not an either or, but everything situation.

I couldn't have said it better.  I'm buying at least one of every cool new black (or Coyote brown) rifle that comes out.  PS90, FS200, Sig 556, SCAR, etc...

Just for the record:

The price for the HK416 upper kits is between $1100-$1300. A few dealers who got their hands on a small number of uppers set the $2300 price we all saw a few months ago. HK had nothing to do with it. State & local LEO orders are being accepted right now. Civilian sales are still on the drawing board, so they are far from dead. I'm don't care what you read on some other thread or forum.

Several U.S. military Special Operations units are purchasing the HK416. Notice that I said "Purchasing". They are not merely TE items like I see posted in this thread, that’s just plain BS. I was told, "Every unit that CAN buy the HK416 is doing so". Not every military unit can just run out and buy whatever they want. They have a chain of command that limits them in these areas. Only a very limited few have this kind of freedom & funding.

Judging by the military units issuing the 416, I don't think there is any question which system has been more thoroughly tested. These guys shoot more ammo in a week than many garage or basement manufacturers shoot in a year. Colt has already stated the LE1020 system only had about 15,000 through it, at least in Feb 2006 time frame.

I cannot directly compare the HK416 to the Colt 1020 because I have only handled and shot a couple of HK416's. I have never even seen a LE1020 with my own eyes, but I look forward to the opportunity.

Quoted: Dinger speaks the truth.   We just beat out HK on one mil purchase but there are others underway.

What mil purchase was that?

Quoted: Can't say yet but it's Army.

Individual private purchase? Or is it a complete unit buying for issue?

Several U.S. military Special Operations units are purchasing the HK416. Notice that I said "Purchasing". They are not merely TE items like I see posted in this thread, that’s just plain BS. I was told, "Every unit that CAN buy the HK416 is doing so". Not every military unit can just run out and buy whatever they want. They have a chain of command that limits them in these areas. Only a very limited few have this kind of freedom & funding.

That really doesn't mean much.  There is a little bit of everything being issued out there.  As soon as Colt ramps up production, you'll see a number of them in the field too I'm sure.