I recall that the M-16 is considered "combat effective" or some other buzzword until 2008. My question is "what then?"

Will they swap uppers for the larger round (6.8?), will they consider a new weapon design, or will they put our troops in jeopardy by buying another ineffective Italian "appeasement" for more air base leases?

(No offense Beretta fans, but 9mm FMJ is suicide unless there's a selector switch on the weapon.)

What do you all think?

THe SCAR-L and SCAR-H (Special operations Combat Assault Rifle, Light and Heavy) will be going into production starting FY 2004, to be issued primarily to NAVSPECWARCOM troops (Seals, etc)and USASOC troops (75th Ranger, 160th SOAR, etc).
It seems to be a modular system with interchangable action/barrels allowing rapid conversion to 5.56mm,5.45mm,7.62mm,6.8mm and more.
This is per the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP), Special Operations Aquistions and Logistics Center.

I would look for a variant this weapon system to replace the M16/M4 series within a year or two after the initial SOPMOD issues, to regular Army units. It is also slated to replace the SR25, and M14 sniper variants currently in use.

I'd say HK is a more likely candidate than Berretta to manufacture since they are apparently involved in its development.

read about it at:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003smallarms/spell.ppt

(you will need Microsoft Powerpoint or Powerpoint viewer as it is in .ppt format)


If anybody knows any more or has corrections to this info, feel free...

Thanks for the info.

When you state 7.62 do you mean .308 or 7.62x39 ??

I don't know, the documents didn't say. I assume 7.62x51 since this would be preferable long range sniper round, but 7.62x29 would be good for interoperability since it is readily available everywhere in the third world.

I also suspect the SCAR-L and SCAR-H are based on the X-M8 weapon we have seen pictures of/references to, but this is an assumption.

At the risk of asking an exceptionally stupid question, how is it better?

Sexier, maybe if you like that sort of thing, but you can already do all those things by swapping uppers on an M-16, so why piss away another great gob of the taxpayers' money just to make a non-US contractor grin?

Maybe I am just dense.

Cheers!
Him

Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP) says:
"This will be a weapon of maximized lethality, superior to the M4A1 though versatility, fire control and target aquisition both day and night during CQB and at ranges of 800M."

You can't swap a 7.62x51mm upper on a standard M16 lower, the magwell is not big enough. 5.56 is generally not an effective sniper round at 800 meters.

As far how it is better, if you read the presentation link, you know as much as I do.

Does this crap ever stop...........

If you were to take everything that Govt' contractors put in their sales literature plus what the high-speed techno types put in their power point presentations as gospel, then we would have been carrying a G-36, XM-8 or whatever else for the last 3-5 years already.

Just because it's in R&D or being shown at some arms show, or even being field tested for that matter doesn't necessarily make it so. Take all this stuff with a grain of salt Guys. Not that I'm anti-techology or hiding my head in the sand mind you. But, there is a big difference between prototypes and what is finally put into production. How many versions of this HK abortion have we seen in the last few years that have been touted as the M-16's replacement ..........Puh-Leeze.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Do you honestly think that the Army and Marine Corps would be buying brand new M-16A4's to use as interim weapons for what,........ 4 whole freaking years when they could continue to get by with M-16A2's for that time period. Hell, even the National Guard, as tight as they are with a dollar have started to field the A4 to Infantry units.

By taking the benifits of the modular concept as originally applied to the M-4 with the SOPMOD package, along with all the highspeed gadets that heretofor were only available to the Spec Ops types and applying it to the Infantry rifle. I.E., a flat top upper and available rail system to mount conventional optics, dot sights, night vision, lasers, IR, etc, etc. They have now given the average grunt a weapon system that can be tailored for specific mission needs to improve their combat effectivness. That tells me that the powers that be have decided to spend their ever decreasing defense dollars on the next evolution of the M-16 series.

(rant mode now off)

WpnsMan  

 

WpnsMan,
This isn't contractor sales literature, it's JSSAP literature, they are a US gov't agency. from what I have seen, Many weapons they present at this funding proposal stage are adoped. I have no idea if it will adopted or not, I don't even really know what it is...few if any of us do. Just a tidbit I found I thought I would share.
But you can draw whatever conclusions you want from the document, if you have read it, you know as much as I do.