Armory Sponsor
Posted: 6/28/2009 6:12:36 PM EDT
|
Does anyone know how SOCOM intends to issue the SCAR-H variants?
The 20" version will prolly be used as a Designated Marksman weapon...but what about the "standard" 16" barreled version, or the 13" short version? What roles are they forseen to fulfill? |
|
Quoted:
It gives the shooter the option of talioring his load for the mission at hand. Some operators/units want 7.62 NATO rifle and not 5.56 NATO. CD This, and the SCAR-H is a more modern platform suitable for optics, standard control layout, smaller size and lighter than available (M14 based) 7.62 rifles. |
|
Quoted:
How about, the basic M16 design is approaching fifty years old and there have been some major improvements in weapon design technology in the interim. The real question isn't why. The real question is when. What improvements in weapon technology have their been that the M-16 doesn't have (save for the typical 'direct impingement sucks argument) that the SCAR does have? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about, the basic M16 design is approaching fifty years old and there have been some major improvements in weapon design technology in the interim. The real question isn't why. The real question is when. What improvements in weapon technology have their been that the M-16 doesn't have (save for the typical 'direct impingement sucks argument) that the SCAR does have? Good question. Does this thing really put 5.56 projectiles down range any better than the existing platform? For the price tag on these things it would need to be an enormous improvement to justify. |
|
How about piston driven action, old technology though.
Newer materials used in construction. Modular design Quick change barrels Improved optics platform Controls similar to M16, easy training transition for Soldiers. Uses NATO STANAG M16 magazine interface, new magazine design not required but magazines such as the MagPul will probably be utilized in future designs as standard. Rail platforms incorporated into the basic design, no need to upgrade with aftermarket add ons. Initial design pricing is high, when a weapon is standardized the price comes down substatially for large base orders, it has to, part of the Research and Design Agreement so what a SCAR costs now won't be what it costs as a Standard A issue item. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about, the basic M16 design is approaching fifty years old and there have been some major improvements in weapon design technology in the interim. The real question isn't why. The real question is when. What improvements in weapon technology have their been that the M-16 doesn't have (save for the typical 'direct impingement sucks argument) that the SCAR does have? Good question. Does this thing really put 5.56 projectiles down range any better than the existing platform? For the price tag on these things it would need to be an enormous improvement to justify. IMO: The two biggest reasons for the SCAR platform are as follows: SOCOM did NOT want the XM8, and it looked as though "big green" was going that route so they started the SCAR program to start an alternative track toward a newer weapon that would fit their needs. The second big reason is weapon longevity/durability. Many SOCOM units train and shoot a ton even in the absence of the current deployment optempo. M4s just don't stand up to heavy use - somewhere around 5-6k rounds is the typical life if the published briefing materials are correct, and probably even less in some high-intensity uses. Imagine the logistics of trying to keep functional reliable weapons issued in a unit where say 20% of the weapons require armory level maintenance, rebuild or replacement on a quarterly basis. It's just too much hassle of trying to support a 5k round weapon versus a 25,000 round weapon. Especially if it's a 25k round weapon where almost all repairs can be done at the individual operator level. A variety of smaller "user interface" issues were addressed in the specifications to accommodate the typically different way in which many SOCOM users need to use their weapons. For example, almost no one in non-SOCOM units (until very recently) ever trained for or utilized burst fire, and they don't even have full auto available. In contrast, many SOCOM users do use full auto. Lastly, they acknowledged the reality that there was a need for a 7.62x51 rifle. They've spent a tremendous amount of money trying to maintain and upgrade M14s and end up with something that is heavy and kludgy. A modern 7.62x51 rifle that is lighter, more optics and accessories friendly, and most importantly, has a similar manual of arms with other current small arms is a huge improvement. |
|
Quoted:
But why is a 7.62mm battle rifle needed? A Designated Marksman Rifle, yes, but what good is a 7.62mm rifle with a 13" barrel? If it is penetration you are after, the Germans developed a 5.56mm round that had better performance than the 7.62...in the 1970's. exactly. the short barrel 7.62x51mm concept is retarded. Actually, the whole SCAR program is a waste of money as far as I am concerned. |
| I'm sure Gen. Mulholland is weeping at his desk right now because some Arfcommers think his new rifle is useless. Some warfighters asked for something, and they got it. If someone can prove to me that bureaucratic bullshit got SCAR shoved down SOCOM's throat, then so be it. Barring that, what is the problem? |
|
Quoted:
How about piston driven action, old technology though. Newer materials used in construction. Modular design Quick change barrels Improved optics platform Controls similar to M16, easy training transition for Soldiers. Uses NATO STANAG M16 magazine interface, new magazine design not required but magazines such as the MagPul will probably be utilized in future designs as standard. Rail platforms incorporated into the basic design, no need to upgrade with aftermarket add ons. Initial design pricing is high, when a weapon is standardized the price comes down substatially for large base orders, it has to, part of the Research and Design Agreement so what a SCAR costs now won't be what it costs as a Standard A issue item. please enlighten me as to what "new" materials the SCAR uses, specifically. please describe how the SCAR is an "improved" optics platform compared to currently available AR-15 type uppers. be specific. the M16 already uses M16 mags amazingly enough, so no advantage there 
what is not modular on the AR-15 that is on the SCAR, and how is that an advantage specifically? the SCAR is a fucking mess of screws just waiting to come loose. You need a fucking TORQUE WRENCH and TORX DRIVERS to assemble the thing correctly if you actually intend to use its "modularity". Talk about field friendly! what specific advantage does a quick change barrel have vs. swapping uppers or optics? this is a rifle, not a LMG. the M4 has had rails for almost twenty years. which is cheaper, adding a rail, or designing an entirely new rifle? one thing the SCAR does have that the AR does not is a reciprocating charging handle. Apparently we must have fallen back to the training level of soviet conscripts and can no longer understand how to use a separate charging handle, bolt release, and forward assist, so we revert back to cave man weapons ergonomics. CHARGING HANDLE NOW DOES ALL COMRADE. NO NEED FOR TRICKY AMERICAN LEVERS AND BUTTONS. MUST REMEMBER TO KEEP HANDS AND OBJECTS AWAY FROM CHARGING HANDLE DURING FIRING, BUT NO MATTER, NOW EVEN ILLITERATE GOAT HERDERS CAN USE WEAPON! THAT IS INDEED GREAT PROGRESS! 
|
|
Quoted:
I'm sure Gen. Mulholland is weeping at his desk right now because some Arfcommers think his new rifle is useless. Some warfighters asked for something, and they got it. If someone can prove to me that bureaucratic bullshit got SCAR shoved down SOCOM's throat, then so be it. Barring that, what is the problem? The problem is the vast amounts of money being wasted on silly ass, ill conceived pet projects within the DoD. Money which would have been better spent elsewhere. Normally most of these silly ass projects at least create or support American jobs, but in this particular case, it is going to FN, overseas, during a fucking recession, which makes it even more frustrating. |
|
1. Polymers and metals
2.Full length non-interrupted rail. 3. Not necessary to scrap tens of millions of magazines already in the system= cost savings. 4. Torque wrenches and drivers are a good thing at Unit level, right now they are Depot level use items. 5.Reduced costs, Unit level instead of Depot level exchange. 6.M16/M4 rails are inadequate and problomatic. Improved grenade launcher interface, reduced/eliminated strain on barrel and gas system. 7.I can live without a reciprocating charging handle, nothing is perfect. 8.Controls except for charging handle location are near identical between SCAR and M16/M4 9. If you don't understand the use of short barrel full power Carbines, you don't understand hard target interdiction close quarter battle principles. Vast amounts of wasted tax dollars was an arguement used when the M16 was adopted. FN weapons are made and tested in the USA at,,,,,,,,FN-USA It is indeed great progress and nobody said the SCAR will be the adopted replacement weapon. It is a starting point. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about, the basic M16 design is approaching fifty years old and there have been some major improvements in weapon design technology in the interim. The real question isn't why. The real question is when. What improvements in weapon technology have their been that the M-16 doesn't have (save for the typical 'direct impingement sucks argument) that the SCAR does have? Good question. Does this thing really put 5.56 projectiles down range any better than the existing platform? For the price tag on these things it would need to be an enormous improvement to justify. IMO: The two biggest reasons for the SCAR platform are as follows: SOCOM did NOT want the XM8, and it looked as though "big green" was going that route so they started the SCAR program to start an alternative track toward a newer weapon that would fit their needs. The second big reason is weapon longevity/durability. Many SOCOM units train and shoot a ton even in the absence of the current deployment optempo. M4s just don't stand up to heavy use - somewhere around 5-6k rounds is the typical life if the published briefing materials are correct, and probably even less in some high-intensity uses. Imagine the logistics of trying to keep functional reliable weapons issued in a unit where say 20% of the weapons require armory level maintenance, rebuild or replacement on a quarterly basis. It's just too much hassle of trying to support a 5k round weapon versus a 25,000 round weapon. Especially if it's a 25k round weapon where almost all repairs can be done at the individual operator level. A variety of smaller "user interface" issues were addressed in the specifications to accommodate the typically different way in which many SOCOM users need to use their weapons. For example, almost no one in non-SOCOM units (until very recently) ever trained for or utilized burst fire, and they don't even have full auto available. In contrast, many SOCOM users do use full auto. Lastly, they acknowledged the reality that there was a need for a 7.62x51 rifle. They've spent a tremendous amount of money trying to maintain and upgrade M14s and end up with something that is heavy and kludgy. A modern 7.62x51 rifle that is lighter, more optics and accessories friendly, and most importantly, has a similar manual of arms with other current small arms is a huge improvement. SOCOM absolutely wanted the XM8 and continued to insert it into evaluations in modified form in hopes to revive it from the grave. In recent testing, the XM8 has been near the top of the heap with the 416 and SCAR rounding out the top 3. The XM8 has been shelved because it was felt that it was developed under "unfair" circumstances. It also hasn't been able to meet the weight threshold, especially now that 1913 interface models exist. The XM8 is probably the most reliable op-rod gun in existance right now and SOCOM would love ot have it, however the bean-counters said no. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about, the basic M16 design is approaching fifty years old and there have been some major improvements in weapon design technology in the interim. The real question isn't why. The real question is when. What improvements in weapon technology have their been that the M-16 doesn't have (save for the typical 'direct impingement sucks argument) that the SCAR does have? Good question. Does this thing really put 5.56 projectiles down range any better than the existing platform? For the price tag on these things it would need to be an enormous improvement to justify. IMO: The two biggest reasons for the SCAR platform are as follows: SOCOM did NOT want the XM8, and it looked as though "big green" was going that route so they started the SCAR program to start an alternative track toward a newer weapon that would fit their needs. The second big reason is weapon longevity/durability. Many SOCOM units train and shoot a ton even in the absence of the current deployment optempo. M4s just don't stand up to heavy use - somewhere around 5-6k rounds is the typical life if the published briefing materials are correct, and probably even less in some high-intensity uses. Imagine the logistics of trying to keep functional reliable weapons issued in a unit where say 20% of the weapons require armory level maintenance, rebuild or replacement on a quarterly basis. It's just too much hassle of trying to support a 5k round weapon versus a 25,000 round weapon. Especially if it's a 25k round weapon where almost all repairs can be done at the individual operator level. A variety of smaller "user interface" issues were addressed in the specifications to accommodate the typically different way in which many SOCOM users need to use their weapons. For example, almost no one in non-SOCOM units (until very recently) ever trained for or utilized burst fire, and they don't even have full auto available. In contrast, many SOCOM users do use full auto. Lastly, they acknowledged the reality that there was a need for a 7.62x51 rifle. They've spent a tremendous amount of money trying to maintain and upgrade M14s and end up with something that is heavy and kludgy. A modern 7.62x51 rifle that is lighter, more optics and accessories friendly, and most importantly, has a similar manual of arms with other current small arms is a huge improvement. SOCOM absolutely wanted the XM8 and continued to insert it into evaluations in modified form in hopes to revive it from the grave. In recent testing, the XM8 has been near the top of the heap with the 416 and SCAR rounding out the top 3. The XM8 has been shelved because it was felt that it was developed under "unfair" circumstances. It also hasn't been able to meet the weight threshold, especially now that 1913 interface models exist. The XM8 is probably the most reliable op-rod gun in existance right now and SOCOM would love ot have it, however the bean-counters said no. Source? I am not trying to be snide, but those are some pretty big claims to make without some evidence to back them up. |
|
Quoted:
Not every one in SOCOM liked the XM8, I know I didn't and don't know anybody in 5th that did. We would have been happy with just a 6.8mm SPC upper for our M4s. CD Thanks for the insight. I know its early but whats the consensus between you guys and the SCAR? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not every one in SOCOM liked the XM8, I know I didn't and don't know anybody in 5th that did. We would have been happy with just a 6.8mm SPC upper for our M4s. CD Thanks for the insight. I know its early but whats the consensus between you guys and the SCAR? This |
|
Quoted:
SOCOM absolutely wanted the XM8 and continued to insert it into evaluations in modified form in hopes to revive it from the grave. In recent testing, the XM8 has been near the top of the heap with the 416 and SCAR rounding out the top 3. The XM8 has been shelved because it was felt that it was developed under "unfair" circumstances. It also hasn't been able to meet the weight threshold, especially now that 1913 interface models exist. The XM8 is probably the most reliable op-rod gun in existance right now and SOCOM would love ot have it, however the bean-counters said no.
that's some really hilarious stuff right there. do you get your information from airsoft forums or do you just sort of make it up as you go along? |
|
Used to be "Men with Green Faces", Now it is "Men with Golden Guns". 
|
Armory Sponsor