Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/4/2003 2:06:34 PM EDT
You'll need a unZIP program to read this (MS word doc). Has a lot more specifics about performance required of the SCAR:

www.eps.gov/EPSData/ODA/Synopses/27191/H92222%2D04%2DR%2D0001A/SynopsisofDraftspecification04%2DR%2D0001rev1­%2Edoc%2Ezip


Link Posted: 11/4/2003 3:15:46 PM EDT
Move the selector lever/safety and verify that tactile signature is provided with minimal noise and that movement from ‘Safe’ position to ‘Full-auto’ position does not exceed 90 degrees.
View Quote
hmmm.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 8:26:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/5/2003 8:50:31 AM EDT by blikbok]
"Hmm" on the full-auto part? I'll add a "Hmm" on the full-auto requirement for the 7.62x51mm version.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 9:16:58 AM EDT
Actually the hhmming was the 90 degree from safe to FA - as the M4/M16 has 180... At least when Ilooked 10 secs ago. The 7.62 NATO with a suppressor is actually controllable in full auto. As well it will adopt to other rounds that are more manageable than the 7.62x51
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 9:45:39 AM EDT
Ah, so it'd be only a 45° motion to semi? Interesting. I did realize that other calibers make the rifle more controllable, and if the rifle it controllable in FA, it should be very controllable in rapid single shots. This SCAR is just for SOCOM, correct?
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 9:49:35 AM EDT
Notice the coloring and low IR/radar signature objective? Seems to me like that favors an XM8-type weapon or some other polymer gun.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 10:21:33 AM EDT
I think the uninterupted top rail disqualifies the XM-8 - as well the EGLM attachment. The SOPMODII and SCAR stuff has been furnished in TAUPE. My guess is easiest fix with the M16 platform is a redesigned selector Safe - Auto - Semi. IMHO/E the M16 selector is much better than the H&K types -and if it aint broke dont f*ck it up.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 10:28:42 AM EDT
anything would be better than the XM-8
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 10:46:46 AM EDT
WTF? Money says the guy that thought that spec up rarely spends time outside the office.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 11:11:38 AM EDT
That reduced thermal signature requires insulating the barrel (not a good idea). The M-16 could be easilly altered to allow full auto fire at the position of semi and semi at the position of auto. (just modifications to the selector itself should do this.)
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 3:13:12 PM EDT
Also, note the overall length restriction on the SCAR-S. If this isn't aimed directly at favouring HK, I don't know what is. There's now way to get a convemntional M-16 derivative system with the normal buffer/tube assy to meet that OAL requirement. On the SCAR-CQB, yes -- on the SCAR - Standard (Carbine), no.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 3:33:18 PM EDT
If there's a will there's a way![:D]
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 3:59:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mach6: Also, note the overall length restriction on the SCAR-S. If this isn't aimed directly at favouring HK, I don't know what is. There's now way to get a convemntional M-16 derivative system with the normal buffer/tube assy to meet that OAL requirement. On the SCAR-CQB, yes -- on the SCAR - Standard (Carbine), no.
View Quote
The document specifies 33" stock extended/29.9" closed for the SCAR-S.. and those are the dimensions of the current M4.. and the SCAR (CQB) specifies dimensions equal to that of a M4 with a 10.5" upper. The XM8 fits in those dimensions with a 12.5" or 9" barrel respectively... Combine that with the fact that muzzle velocities in the G36 series tend to run equal to a M16 series _minus_ one inch of barrel (i.e. the 12.5" G36K has the same velo as a 11.5" Colt Commando.. the 15.4" G36 has numbers like that of a M4) and the XM8 seems to be at a disadvantage.
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 11:07:29 AM EDT
I'd prefer a full-auto at 6 o'clock, safe at 3 o'clock, and semi inbetween that a re-order of the settings.
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 1:13:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ahab:
Originally Posted By mach6: Also, note the overall length restriction on the SCAR-S. If this isn't aimed directly at favouring HK, I don't know what is. There's now way to get a convemntional M-16 derivative system with the normal buffer/tube assy to meet that OAL requirement. On the SCAR-CQB, yes -- on the SCAR - Standard (Carbine), no.
View Quote
The document specifies 33" stock extended/29.9" closed for the SCAR-S.. and those are the dimensions of the current M4.. and the SCAR (CQB) specifies dimensions equal to that of a M4 with a 10.5" upper. The XM8 fits in those dimensions with a 12.5" or 9" barrel respectively... Combine that with the fact that muzzle velocities in the G36 series tend to run equal to a M16 series _minus_ one inch of barrel (i.e. the 12.5" G36K has the same velo as a 11.5" Colt Commando.. the 15.4" G36 has numbers like that of a M4) and the XM8 seems to be at a disadvantage.
View Quote
Good post! Also, Anyone notice this cartridge specified: 5.56mm. R2LP :for Mil. standard: HS/4083/CO1/1251A Never heard of that one! Any ideas?
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 2:10:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Horik: Also, Anyone notice this cartridge specified: 5.56mm. R2LP :for Mil. standard: HS/4083/CO1/1251A Never heard of that one! Any ideas?
View Quote
That is a 62 gr. frangible round made by Black Hills- R2LP stands for Reduced Ricochet Limited Penetration
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 7:36:52 PM EDT
A'ha! Thanks for the info!
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 8:07:22 PM EDT
There are various ways to reduce heat signature. Ceramic linings have been getting better. Titanium is also a candidate. Etc. Jack
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 6:32:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 3rdtk: There are various ways to reduce heat signature. Ceramic linings have been getting better. Titanium is also a candidate. Etc. Jack
View Quote
Don't forget carbon fiber. ls
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 9:57:31 AM EDT
I measured my 16" Midlength w/ Magpull M93 I am sure it was very close to the 33" length. The XM-8 does not have a full length M1913 rail - nor does the G36. This is still a draft is it not - with industry feedback and (hopefully) user feedback before a fixed spec is issued?
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 11:02:24 AM EDT
I'm glad to see much of the spec is based off current weapons with improvements rather than a completely imagined requirement.
Top Top